Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Telephone Service (Priority List)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now issue a general direction to the Post Office Corporation to give absolute priority to disabled persons in the allocation of telephones.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): No, Sir. The Post Office tells me that priority is given to disabled people who have a special need for telephone service.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister not aware that all disabled people have a far greater need for a telephone than other people? Is he further aware that the prices which are charged and which some people can pay are a great burden on disabled people and often prevent them from having a telephone? In the circumstances, first, will he take steps to relieve disabled people of at least some of the charges, and, secondly, give a direction that all disabled persons who need telephones will be given absolute priority on all occasions?

Mr. Chataway: This must be a matter for the Post Office. The Post Office gives a very high priority to—for example—disabled people living alone and requiring a telephone as an essential means of summoning assistance in an emergency. But it is essentially a matter for the Post Office.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency two people, both suffering extraordinarily severe disablement, have been waiting since May for the installation of a telephone, and that I have been told that this depends upon the Post Office? If I were to send him particulars of this case, would he be kind enough to help to get a telephone quickly for this family who need it so much?

Mr. Chataway: If the hon. Gentleman will send me details of this case I will ensure that the Post Office looks at it very carefullay, but, as he will appreciate, it is a matter for the Post Office.

First-Class Mail

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what proportion of first-class mail posted on Fridays is delivered on Saturdays.

Mr. Chataway: Separate statistics are not available for Saturdays, but I understand from the Post Office that the proportion of overnight postings delivered is rather less than that of 94 per cent. on other days because there is no second delivery and many firms are closed.

Mr. Wall: I accept that statistics are difficult to obtain, but would my hon. Friend agree that there is a fairly widespread view that it is not worth putting a 3p stamp on an envelope on a Friday if it is not going to be delivered on the Saturday? Is he also aware that much of the official mail from this House posted before the end of business on a Friday does not arrive in constituencies until the Monday?

Mr. Chataway: If there is that belief, it is not well founded. I am told by the Post Office that 84 per cent. of first-class mail posted the day before is available for first delivery, and that that figure probably holds good for a Saturday—although some proportion of that 84 per cent. cannot actually be delivered because the firm is closed.

Broadcast Receiving Licences

Mr. Rost: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he has studied, and is satisfied with, the terms, provisions and limitations subject to which a broadcast receiving licence is issued; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chataway: I consider the conditions on which broadcast receiving licences are issued to be generally satisfactory. Changes may be needed from time to time, and the position is kept under review.

Mr. Rost: Now that an increasing number of television licences are for colour, costing the not inconsiderable sum of £12, does my right hon. Friend not consider that it is time to review the situation whereby such licences cannot be encashed for any reason if they are not used to their full date of expiry? Is this not a case where an arrangement could be made similar to that which operates in the case of motor licences, for example, which also have to be paid for in advance but which can be paid for quarterly and can be encashed if not fully used?

Mr. Chataway: It would put up the cost of the licensing system considerably if we were to have quarterly licences and the arrangements suggested by my hon. Friend. These costs would have to be met in some way—presumably by an addition to the licence fee. On the whole therefore, I believe that the present regulation and the present dispensation for encashment within 28 days is probably as far as we should go.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Minister aware that there is tremendous dissatisfaction among elderly people, such as pensioners, about the present system, whereby they pay the same amount for a licence as is paid by a wealthy person with a colour television and four other sets in his house? Does he consider that that is fair? If not, will he now do something about it?

Mr. Chataway: I do not believe that it would be right to have a general concession for all elderly people since, among other reasons, that would involve a much larger payment on the part of others, some of whom would be worse off than those benefiting from the concession.

Local Radio

Mr. Lane: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he now expects to introduce legislation this year for the extension of local radio.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether

he can now state that he will introduce legislation to implement the Government's proposals for commercial radio in the next Session of Parliament.

Mr. Chataway: I cannot anticipate the contents of the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Lane: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that in the early stages of the new system it is still his intention that stations which are licensed should include a few experimental stations covering relatively small communities?

Mr. Chataway: Yes, Sir. That remains my intention.

Telephone Kiosks

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement on the progress of the Post Office's research into vandalism in telephone boxes.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will give a general direction to the Post Office to ensure that a greater proportion of public telephones is maintained in order.

Mr. Chataway: The Post Office assures me that it is progressively introducing countermeasures to make kiosks less vulnerable to damage, and research into further measures is continuing. It is also doing all it can to maintain kiosks in working order. A general direction would not be appropriate.

Mr. Dalyell: What are the counter-measures and how much are they costing?

Mr. Chataway: I am afraid that I do not have a figure from the Post Office of the costs involved. However, about one-third of the 75,600 telephone kiosks that exist have so far been fitted with strengthened equipment and about another 2,000 new-type kiosks have been installed.

Mr. Tilney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at times during the Recess seven-eighths of all the public telephones at Euston Station were out of order? Is not this state of affairs extremely bad not only for the people of this country but for visitors?

Mr. Chataway: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is extremely important to counter vandalism by every means possible—though the national figure for the proportion of kiosks out of use is much smaller than that quoted by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Crawshaw: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered making a payment to shopkeepers—other than those with postal premises—who are prepared to put telephone kiosks in their shops? They would be available only during shop hours, but they would represent an improvement on the present state of affairs, especially in places like Liverpool, where it is possible to search for miles without finding a telephone in working order.

Mr. Chataway: I will ensure that the Post Office considers that suggestion.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the siting of telephone kiosks can help to reduce vandalism? Will he consult local authorities to see that telephone kiosks are placed at the base of multi-storey flats and other public places which are less subject to vandalism?

Mr. Chataway: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Post Office is paying increasing attention to the siting of kiosks to minimise the risk of vandalism.

Communal Television Aerials

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will encourage local authorities to erect communal television aerials in order to reduce the number of individual aerials in those parts of their areas where population densities are extremely high or where flats are provided in considerable numbers.

Mr. Chataway: I recognise that there are strong amenity arguments for the use of communal television aerials. My powers under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, are, however, confined to securing that no one piece of wireless telegraphy apparatus is a source of harmful interference to another.

Mr. Hardy: I recognise the need for supervision within the terms of the Act to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but does he agree that local

authorities should be encouraged to provide communal aerials in areas of dense population? Will he take steps to ensure that these people, particularly in urban district councils like Rawmarsh, in my constituency, are not caused the considerable expense and fuss that occurs in this matter?

Mr. Chataway: I believe that the charges made for licences are reasonable. As for the licences from my Ministry, the charges are designed simply to meet the costs involved. They do not amount to more than a few pence per year per subscriber.

Charges

Mr. Crawshaw: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office Corporation to have a reduced charge in respect of redirecting mail and the re-installation of telephones when this has been brought about by the rehousing of a family under a compulsory purchase order.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. I understand that bodies acquiring property by compulsory purchase have discretionary powers to reimburse such costs in appropriate cases.

Mr. Crawshaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have in mind people who are being sent as far as Liverpool and who do not wish to go there, or leave their homes anyway? Does he appreciate that it is an added imposition when, on having to leave their homes, they are made to pay yet again for the installation of a telephone at the new premises? Will he examine this matter afresh?

Mr. Chataway: It would not be reasonable to expect the Post Office to meet the increased costs thus incurred. However, as I say, the bodies which acquire property by compulsory purchase have discretionary powers to make reimbursement where appropriate.

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many elderly people cannot get reimbursement from anyone although the telephone is of the greatest importance to them? They face a tremendous problem if, because of being obliged to leave their homes, they


have to pay for their telephones to be re-installed? Will he re-examine this matter and see that something is done to help these people?

Mr. Chataway: It is reasonable that this should be a charge on the community and not on the Post Office. It is more fitting that the bodies which are doing the compulsory acquisition should have power to compensate.

Post Office Report and Accounts

Mr. Golding: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he expects to receive the Post Office Report and Accounts for 1970–71.

Mr. Chataway: I have presented the Report and Accounts to Parliament today and they should be generally available tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that the Press seems to have received the Report and Accounts rather earlier than hon. Members of this House? When making statements about these documents, will he draw attention not only to the disappointing postal figures but also to the excellent telecommunications profits which the Press tell us have been earned in the last 12 months?

Mr. Chataway: I would not necessarily guarantee that the Press reports which the hon. Gentleman has seen correspond to the figures that are being published tomorrow. The leak—if it was a leak—which occurred was certainly not by design.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the seriousness of this matter? On 7th October, the Daily Telegraph published an article saying that there would be a profit of £93 million on the telecommunications side and a loss of £50 million on the postal services—figures which are evidently broadly correct. Is he aware that we are told that as a result of these figures there is to be a dampening down of demand for telephones, that the tariff is to be raised and that because the postal services lost money postal charges will be increased? Can the consumer never win with this dreadful nationalised corporation?

Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend asks a number of questions—

Sir G. Nabarro: Good ones, too.

Mr. Chataway: —to which I do not have time to reply this afternoon. The telecommunications side of the Post Office is required to meet a target of 10 per cent. return on capital and it has come very near to meeting it.

Sir G. Nabarro: I know—9·8 per cent.

Mr. Richard: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is intolerable for these reports to appear in the Press before Parliament is given the figures? Is he aware that if as a result of these reports the Post Office, sanctioned by him, allows postal services to be cut and the telephone rental to be increased, he will go down in history as the Minister who presided over the worst postal services at the highest prices?

Mr. Chataway: There is a later Question about tariffs. When we reach it I will have an opportunity to reply to some of the points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. As for the ability of the Post Office to instal telephones and meet the rapidly escalating demand for them, he will know that this is conditioned largely by investment decisions taken four or five years ago.

Mr. Richard: And also because private manufacturers supplying the Post Office cannot keep to their target dates.

Mr. Chataway: The demand for telephones is now running at 28 per cent. above the figure forecast. The Post Office has succeeded in connecting telephones at a rate 10 per cent. above the forecast, which represents a substantial achievement on the part of the telephone service. In so far as it is falling behind demand, that is because the investment decisions taken four or five years ago have limited capacity.

Offensive and Threatening Telephone Calls

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office to improve the special equipment required to trace telephone calls so that offensive or threatening calls may be traced.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. This is a technical matter within the Post Office's managerial responsibilities.

Mrs. Butler: Is it not shocking that people are able to make nuisance calls involving threats of all kinds—which can be extremely upsetting—apparently without anyone's being able to trace them in less than 18 months, the time which elapsed in a recent case involving 300 such calls? Cannot we do better than that? These calls are worrying many people.

Mr. Chataway: I appreciate that calls of this kind cause a great deal of anguish. When the Post Office and police are alerted they do all in their power to trace the calls. The Post Office has some well-tried methods of limiting or deterring calls of this sort.

Mr. Tilney: One of my constituents had hundreds of such calls within a few months. In this technological age, is it not possible to have some means whereby a subscriber can alert an engineer in his or her exchange, so that the call can be traced?

Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend probably knows that if the Post Office and the police are alerted in such cases it is possible to detect the source of the calls.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Does the Minister acknowledge the desirability of advising subscribers that they should use only initials rather than a fuller name or description in telephone directories? That can save a great deal of inconvenience and difficulty, particularly for ladies.

Mr. Chataway: I am sure that subscribers and potential subscribers will take note of that advice.

Telephones (Wailing List)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what are the total number of households in the United Kingdom still on the waiting list of the Post Office for a telephone.

Mr. Chataway: According to the Post Office, 164,000.

Mr. Lewis: This is a magnificent market available to the Post Office. Will my right hon. Friend arrange that the Corporation has increased investment to enable it to take advantage of this market, since it would improve its profitability if it could do so? Does it make any sense

that the Post Office should be advertising extra services such as additional telephones and the like when it cannot supply people who really want a telephone?

Mr. Chataway: The Post Office's advertising is designed principally to ensure that the telephone is more heavily used in off-peak hours. There are considerable financial advantages to the Post Office in a heavier use of that kind. My hon. Friend will know that investment is running at a much higher level than ever before and that the Post Office has done extremely well in making 10 per cent. more connections during this year than forecast.

Mr. Richard: But does not the Minister realise that with so many people waiting for the telephone it would be intolerable to discourage the market by increasing the rentals? Secondly, if there is a hold-up in the manufacture of telephone equipment, why on earth is he so doctrinaire as to insist upon maintaining the ban on the Post Office's manufacturing its own equipment? Why not lift the ban and let it get on with the job?

Mr. Chataway: I have had no request from the Post Office for permission to manufacture and I have no evidence to suggest that that would help matters in any way. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be glad to know that delivery dates have steadily improved over the past year and that the Post Office has moved about as far as it could have done to meet the greatly increased demand.

Postal Charges

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, having regard to the urgent need for stabilisation of prices and competitiveness of exports, whether he will undertake to ensure that his embargo on increased postal charges for 1971 is extended throughout 1972; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Chataway: There is no embargo, but the Post Office will adhere to the terms of the C.B.I. initiative.

Sir G. Nabarro: That is a half-baked reply. It does not answer the Question. Will my right hon. Friend now read the Question in detail and answer it? If there is any increase in postal charges, as already announced by the Post Office


Corporation, will it not be highly inflationary? Further, having regard to the overall surplus of the Post Office—about £40 million—is it necessary to increase either telephone charges or postal charges? Even if there is an increase, can it not be kept strictly to the 5 per cent. clamped on by the C.B.I.?

Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend is not as familiar as I should expect him to be with the C.B.I. initiative. I have told him that the Post Office will abide by the terms of that initiative, as other nationalised industries have undertaken to do. That means that there will not be increases of more than 5 per cent., although, as my hon. Friend will know if he has studied the terms of the C.B.I. initiative, it would allow for increases in certain circumstances which might take the form of a weighted average within the 5 per cent.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: In seeking to abide by the C.B.I. initative, will the Minister take an early opportunity to make a statement to allay the anxiety of Post Office staff that he is seeking to achieve the target set by the C.B.I. by making 20,000 postal workers redundant as a consequence of postal economies?

Mr. Chataway: There is no question of 20,000 postal workers being made redundant, although, as the Post Office has made clear, it is examining the scope of its services to determine what is a sensible structure for them in the 1970s.

Mr. Richard: Has the Minister received any approaches for an increase of tariffs? Will he give the House an undertaking that if he does receive such approaches from the Post Office he will not grant them before the House has had an opportunity to discuss them?

Mr. Chataway: I am discussing with the Post Office a number of possibilities along the lines indicated in my previous answer. No decisions will be taken in the matter without informing the House.

Mr. Richard: We should have a debate in the House.

Sir G. Nabarro: In view of the unsatisfactory answers to Questions Nos. 12 and 15, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as may be.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order in the notice which he gives on Question No. 12. The reference to Question No. 15 is permissible.

Sir G. Nabarro: I withdraw the reference to Question No. 12, Mr. Speaker.

B.B.C. (Licence and Agreement)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what further consideration he has given to measures and machinery to secure compliance by the British Broadcasting Corporation with the terms of the Licence and Agreement, and the provision, whether by a Broadcasting Council or otherwise, of means of vindication and redress for television and radio performers and producers and for the public.

Mr. Chataway: None, Sir. I do not accept it to be the general opinion that there is a failure by the B.B.C. to comply with the Licence and Agreement. As to the second part of the Question, I believe that the best safeguard for the public and for broadcasters is a B.B.C. governing body of high quality charged with a clear and undiluted responsibility for the conduct of the Corporation's affairs.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does my right hon. Friend ever listen to or watch B.B.C. programmes? Is he not aware that comment is frequently made on the news by the staff of the B.B.C. which is contrary to the Licence and Agreement? What is being done about it? Is it not clear that the governors are not governing?

Mr. Chataway: There is no prohibition in the Licence and Agreement upon news comment by those appearing on television or speaking on radio. I consider that our system is right in placing a square responsibility upon the governors for the performance of the Corporation.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman pursue this a little further? The point raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on the question of the Licence and Agreement is that the B.B.C. itself is prohibited from expressing opinions. At what point does an employee of the B.B.C. cease to be the B.B.C.? Is it not the case in law that all employees of an


organisation are responsible to their employers, and that if they express opinions they are the opinions of their employers?

Mr. Chataway: Nothing in the Licence and Agreement prohibits comment from those who are either employed by the B.B.C. or are engaged by the B.B.C. on contract. There is, however, a clear obligation upon the Corporation to achieve impartiality and balance.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will seek to change the Licence and Agreement with the British Broadcasting Corporation so that the Corporation is required to insist upon payment for advertising material broadcast.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir.

Mr. Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter? Is it not the case that the amount of free advertising on the B.B.C. is increasing and that this constitutes an intolerable favouritism, with unfair competition, and even opens up the possibility of the danger of corruption? Will he conduct an examination into this question? There have been many instances of free advertising. The matter should be examined to see whether something is going on which should not be allowed to go on.

Mr. Chataway: There is always a difficult line for the B.B.C. to draw. At the one extreme it would be ridiculous to prohibit the mention of any firms but, at the other, the B.B.C. must always be careful not to provide undue free advertising. This is a difficult line, and I think that it is true to say that it is overstepped from time to time. It is a matter about which the hon. Gentleman is right to complain on occasion to the Governors.

Independent Television (Second Channel)

Mr. Gorst: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what representations he has received on the subject of a second television channel for Independent Television; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Chataway: The Federation of Broadcasting Unions has sent me a copy,

which I have noted with interest, of a letter it has sent to the Director-General of the Independent Television Authority. As far as the Government's attitude to this matter is concerned, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) on 21st July.—[Vol. 821, c. 1436]

Mr. Gorst: I do not wish to press my right hon. Friend for any date or time scale, but will he nevertheless confirm that it remains the Government's policy to extend the choice available to the viewing public in television broadcasting at the earliest practical opportunity?

Mr. Chataway: It is the Government's intention to enlarge choice wherever possible. As regards use of the fourth channel, the I.T.A. is to give me its views towards the end of the year about a possible ITV 2 and I shall consider them at that point.

Mr. Whitehead: Has the Minister noted the statement of the Director-General of the I.T.A. that there should not be a public debate about ITV 2—or TV 4, as some of us might wish to call it? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a scandal if there were not a public debate, and a debate in the House, about the disposal of this scarce public asset?

Mr. Chataway: That was a quotation taken very much out of context. There is already considerable debate about the matter.

B.B.C. (Chairman of Governors)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications on what date the term of office of the Chairman of the Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation expires; how many vacancies now exist on the governing body; how long those vacancies have existed; and when it is proposed to make appointments to fill them.

Mr. Chataway: The answer to the first part of the Question is "31st August, 1972". There are three vacancies which occurred on 1st July, 31st August and 30th September respectively, and which I expect will be filled shortly.

Mr. King: Has my right hon. Friend studied the research just published in The


Times indicating a majority view that the influence of the B.B.C. now exceeds the influence of Parliament? Does not that create a new situation in which precedent is not necessarily to be followed? Does he accept that the new Chairman of the Governors should, unlike his predecessors, give his full time to the post? Does he also accept in the interests of harmony it might be a good thing to keep any vacancies unfilled until he has had a chance to consult the Chairman-elect?

Mr. Chataway: I saw the figures to which my hon. Friend refers, but I do not agree with the conclusions. I will take account of his observations about the next Chairman. It is important that we should fill the vacancies fairly soon, particularly that of a national Governor for Wales, about which an announcement will be made shortly.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the B.B.C. that some of us are concerned that in their attempts to meet those who are trying to put shackles on the B.B.C.'s freedom the Governors should not seek to evade their responsibility by shuffling it off on to a special committee? Will he convey to them that they are the body with authority under the law to deal with complaints from the public and that that should remain the position?

Mr. Chataway: I am satisfied that it is clear to the Governors that it is they who have responsibility and who are answerable to the House.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Is it not a fact that the Governors, having undertaken this action, have underlined the contention of many of us that it is impossible to carry out both the function of being guardians of the B.B.C. and the function of representing the staff in the way that they have seen fit to do in the past year?

Mr. Chataway: I do not believe that that is the implication of the action that the Governors have taken. Certainly the Governors accept that they have a responsibility to society as a whole for the way in which the B.B.C. is run and are not simply there in order to manage it efficiently.

Mr. James Hamilton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree—and this

applies to all Ministers in future—that when looking for chairmen of boards the Government should advertise the posts and ensure that the political persuasion of any applicant is not a barrier to his taking up a certain position? Would not that avoid charges of nepotism and any signs of patronage?

Mr. Chataway: I do not think that there is much to be said for advertising such posts. In filling this post and others we shall be guided only by the desire to get the best men for the job.

B.B.C. (Governors)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications for what period of time Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation are normally invited to serve; on what date Sir Hugh Greene was appointed; how long he served; under what circumstances he resigned; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chataway: The normal period is five years. Sir Hugh Greene was appointed on 1st July, 1969, and resigned as from 31st August, 1971, on his own initiative, on the ground that he was to become full-time Chairman of Greene King and Sons Limited.

Mr. King: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the B.B.C. must be a forward-looking Corporation, sensitive to the climate of its time; that to appoint a former Director-General—however eminent—who must be concerned with decisions that he himself took ten years ago, formed an unfortunate precedent, and that my right hon. Friend had better not repeat it?

Mr. Chataway: It probably is not a precedent that many would want to follow in future. I think that that view would be shared by Sir Hugh Greene himself.

Mr. Heffer: When the right hon. Gentleman makes these appointments in future, will he make it clear that the people appointed must resist the pressures that are being applied by some of his hon. Friends, who do not want comment to be made by the B.B.C.? Is it not a scandal that the programme, "It's Saturday", which criticised last year's Tory conference, came off because of the type


of pressures that were being exerted by some of his more reactionary friends?

Mr. Chataway: The Governors are not there only to resist pressures. They are there also to take account of feelings in the community outside. It is therefore right and proper that views should be expressed about the way the Governors are discharging their responsibilities and right and proper that they should take note of them.

Mr. Richard: I was a little concerned about what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about Sir Hugh Greene. Does not he agree that Sir Hugh was a remarkably successful and innovating Director-General; that his period at Broadcasting House was one of the most remarkable that the B.B.C. has known, and that whether one agrees with the precedent or not he is proving an extraordinarily valuable Governor?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not quite keeping up with events, because Sir Hugh is no longer a Governor. I pay tribute to Sir Hugh for the service that he gave to the B.B.C.

Giro

Mr. Simon Mahon: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he will be in a position to make a statement on the future of Giro in Bootle.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he is yet in a position to make a firm statement about the future of Giro.

Mr. John D. Grant: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when Cooper Brothers will have completed their report on the future vialibity of the Giro banking service; whether that report, together with the report of the inter-departmental working party, will be published; and when he will make a statement about the future of Giro following examination of these reports.

Mr. Chataway: I am urgently considering the views of the consultants and Post Office comments on them, which I have now received. I hope to make a statement soon.

Mr. Mahon: I appreciate the difficulty in which the right hon. Gentleman finds himself, but I remind him that Merseyside has 50,000 people unemployed and that 3,500 people in my constituency are employed by Giro. These people have been very patient and are very anxious. Why are we waiting so long? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the E.E.C. countries have Giro banks and control in their countries? Can I be assured that after 28th October we will have a viable and prosperous Giro organisation in this country?

Mr. Chataway: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety in this matter. I assure him that I share a number of his concerns. Over these past months I have been intent upon trying to find some basis upon which the Giro could eventually break even. It is in pursuit of that objective that I have had the advice of Cooper Brothers on a number of unresolved financial questions.

Mr. Grant: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the point that I raised in my Question about publication of the report. Will he bear in mind that any further procrastination in the matter can only continue to damage the viability of the undertaking, that several thousand jobs are at stake, and that there is grave anxiety among members of the staff of Giro because they are concerned that the Government should not seek to carry out another U.C.S.-style exercise on Giro?

Mr. Chataway: No procrastination is involved. It would be contrary to all precedent to publish confidential advice from officials. Certainly it is not usual to publish confidential reports by consultants, which must necessarily be frank in commenting on people and things.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of Giro to the fact that it is in danger of losing many customers, including me, because of the incomprehensibility of some of its cheque forms, which seem to go out of their way to differ as far as possible from those used in the banking system familiar to us all?

Mr. Chataway: I am sure that the Post Office will take note of my hon. Friend's observations.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

National Parks

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to designate further National Parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I am currently considering an order designating part of the Wye Valley as an area of outstanding natural beauty. I am pleased to say that 16 per cent. of the land surface of England is already designated as either a National Park or an area of outstanding natural beauty. I shall be pleased to consider any proposals for increasing this percentage.

Mr. Chapman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree with the principle that designation of National Parks should be based not only upon choosing areas for preservation of the inherent beauty of those parks but also deliberately taking parts of the country—not excluding urban areas, and certainly including derelict areas—which are ripe for a face-lift?

Mr. Walker: We want to extend positive policies in face-lifting bad urban areas, but I should have thought that designation as a National Park is not the right machinery. There are certain areas where we can clear derelict land and thereafter they can be designated as areas of natural beauty.

Mr. John Silkin: Does the Secretary of State now consider it appropriate to issue a directive on what sort of development he would regard as appropriate in the National Park areas? There has peen considerable controversy about this.

Mr. Walker: It is clear that there is a strong case against development in the National Park areas unless there are strong and remarkable reasons for doing so. Providing that Governments pursue that attitude there will be no problem.

House Improvement Publicity Campaign

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress to date of his house improvement publicity campaign.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): Fifty-six local publicity campaigns have been held to date and 40 more are planned, including a major campaign next April in Greater London. This Joint effort by central and local government has un-doubtedly been a major factor in the remarkable general increase achieved in the rate of progress with house improvement.

Mr. Chapman: I recognise the publicity which has been given and the progress which has been made. Politically, economically, socially and from every point of view, is not renovation better than demolition? Is my hon. Friend prepared to keep an open mind not only on the question of increasing the grants but also on the question of increasing the proportion of the cost for which a grant will be made available?

Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend's preliminary remarks and note his later comment. He will be pleased to learn that discretionary grants are up by as much as 61 per cent.

Mr. Fernyhough: As these grants are 75 per cent. of the total cost from public funds, why are the Government so ready to give away to wealthy landlords public money to this extent whilst at the same time they are determined to reduce housing subsidies?

Mr. Channon: The question of housing subsidies is another matter which we shall have plenty of opportunity of debating. On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I hope that he and all other hon. Members who have constituencies in the intermediate and development areas which are getting 75 per cent. grants will encourage their local authorities and everyone possible to apply for them.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are great anxieties about the number of houses that are being moved out of the control and occupancy of lower income groups through improvement schemes of this kind?

Mr. Channon: There is no need for any such anxiety. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that in the Government's new proposals, for the very first time in our history, all unfurnished tenants will get the right to a rent allowance.

Sewage (Conversion into Compost)

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what investigations have been made into the commercial possibilities of converting sewage into compost for agricultural purposes.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Working Party on Sewage Disposal has suggested that local authorities should investigate and embark on more positive marketing methods for sludge as a fertiliser. I will encourage them to do this.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I am delighted. Will my right hon. Friend accept my thanks for that very positive reply and accept also that with the trend towards continuous cereal cropping that has grown up in many parts of the country, with the consequent loss of humus, he can kill three birds with one stone by encouraging good farming, healthy living and the useful disposal of such sludge?

Mr. Walker: I shall certainly endeavour to kill as many birds as possible.

Mr. Dalyell: Does "encouragement" mean financial encouragement?

Mr. Walker: Probably not.

Pollution (Fines)

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to announce the result of his review of the system of fines imposed for pollution.

Mr. Peter Walker: I shall propose, as soon as opportunity for legislation offers, that the fines that can be awarded on summary conviction should be increased substantially, and that more offences should be dealt with on indictment.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his determination to cure offenders. Are not prevention and cure better than punishment? Will he take note that in my constituency with the assistance of the Electricity Research Council, we are attempting to cure a very serious pollution problem by means of an oxidation ditch? If we are successful, will my right hon. Friend encourage other local authorities to follow our example?

Mr. Walker: I will certainly encourage local authorities to follow any example which succeeds in this way. It is because we believe that prevention is the best possible means that we have taken measures to increase the strength and size of the Alkali Inspectorate.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the Secretary of State examine the whole question of the disposal of mercury cell batteries, hundreds of thousands of which are thrown away each week by users of hearing aids? This is having an effect on pollution in food intake.

Mr. Walker: I will examine this matter. The topic has not been raised with me individually. The disposal of any article with mercury in it can cause substantially adverse results. We recently discovered that the disposal of thermometers by a hospital was causing adverse effects on a river. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Housing Associations

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received from the various bodies within the voluntary housing movement since the publication of his White Paper "Fair Deal for Housing", Cmnd. No. 4728; and if he will make a statement;

(2) what representations he has received following the publication of the Central Housing Advisory Committee Working Paper on Housing Associations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Paul Channon: Discussions on the White Paper have been held with the National Federation of Housing Societies and the National Association of Almshouses.
My right hon. Friend has received comments on the Central Housing Advisory Committee Working Paper from a number of people interested in the voluntary housing movement. In general they accept the working paper's analysis of the organisation and financial problems facing the movement. Further consultations will take place.

Mr. Tebbit: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is considerable concern in the voluntary housing movement? Although the movement accepts that the White Paper is


designed to assist it, it is concerned that in some circumstances it may make it much more difficult to get new housing associations going if the terms of the White Paper are not to some extent changed.

Mr. Channon: The White Paper proposes a generous subsidy for deficits on new building. There will be special arrangements to give additional help in difficult cases, if my hon. Friend has any specific point in mind I hope that he will get in touch with me.

Mr. Crosland: The House will be relieved but surprised by the Under-Secretary's reply. Is he aware that at the recent conference organised by the National Federation of Housing Societies alarming statements were made by—as I understand it—every speaker about the effect of the White Paper on the future of the voluntary housing movement? The hon. Gentleman must accept that there is great anxiety on this subject. We should be grateful for an oral statement.

Mr. Channon: There are differing views within the voluntary housing movement. Many representatives of the movement have expressed full support for the proposals in the White Paper. The important point is that in total extra sums will be available to the movement, which I hope will be of considerable assistance. If there are specific problems—and I understand that there are—I will examine them further.

Fleet Line

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to announce his decision concerning the Fleet Line.

Mr. Peter Walker: I announced my decision on 18th August to pay 75 per cent. grant towards the cost of the first stage of the line, from Baker Street to the Strand. This is a commitment of £26 million, the biggest grant ever made to London Transport.

Mr. Spearing: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and for his statement after the Question was tabled, but is he aware that many people feel that the section from New Cross to the Strand is as important as the line from the Strand to Baker Street? If he is making some inquiry, would it not be a

good thing to authorise that work now, as it can stand on its own feet?

Mr. Walker: The Dockland Study is an important aspect here and I am advised that this stage had to go ahead first. We will make a decision in plenty of time for the next stage if it is decided that it is the correct thing to do.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the stretch of line from Lewisham to New Cross is a vital link now that the arrangements for motorways and similar roads in the area seem to be going ahead? May we have an early decision on this point so that the local authority may make suitable preparations for the reception of this end of the line?

Mr. Walker: As soon as we know the results of the Dockland Study, which is of immense importance to London as a whole, we will make a decision. The grant for the first stage, the extra bus grants, investments for trains, and so forth, that I have announced show that the Government are doing far more for London Transport than any of their predecessors did.

Trunk Roads (South-East England)

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make an announcement concerning trunk road developments in South-East England.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): My right hon. Friend gave full details of the Government's trunk road plans throughout the country, including the South-East, in a reply on 23rd June to a Question from his hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. John Hannam).—[Vol. 819, c. 288–292.]

Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there was a phrase in the report which mentioned that a further announcement was to be made concerning trunk roads in the Greater London area? Can he assure the House that no announcement will be made which would prejudice in either direction the findings of the Greater London Development Plan Inquiry now in process?

Mr. Heseltine: We have always made it clear that any announcements within


the G.L.D.P. area would have to be viable independently of the G.L.D.P. plan.

Housing for the Aged

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now issue a circular to all local authorities requesting them to take special measures to provide housing for the aged.

Mr. Channon: The Government's policy is to encourage the provision of more housing for old people. At the moment local authorities are devoting over a quarter of all their new house-building to one-bedroom and bedsitting room accommodation, most of which will be intended for the elderly. My right hon. Friend does not think that a circular is called for at the present time, but he will keep the situation closely under review.

Mr. Janner: Is it not right that elderly people as a whole are far less well off than the rest of the community? Is it also not right that elderly people find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain mortgages? In those circumstances, would the Minister reconsider his decision and give a firm directive to all local authorities that absolute priority should be given to homes for elderly people?

Mr. Channon: The figures that I have given show that an ever-increasing proportion is being devoted towards that purpose. We will certainly keep the situation under review. There is a lot in what the hon. and learned Gentleman says.

Mr. Freeson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figure of 25–26 per cent. of local authority housing devoted to the elderly has been fairly constant for a number of years? Does it not follow that if there is a reduction in the total number of houses built there will be a reduction in the number of those built for the elderly? What action does he propose to take?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that the proportion has risen to nearly 31 per cent., so that the question is not strictly relevant.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the encouragement given to local authorities by this Government to get on with the job is far better than the issue of stern directives such as the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) suggests, which would be another interference with local government?

Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend has no power to issue a directive on this matter. I think the views of the whole House are that local authorities should devote an increasing proportion of their time and energies to this purpose, and they are doing so.

Noise

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has now received from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Noise Advisory Council on the reduction of noise; and what action he will take in the immediate future.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The Royal Commission has listed noise as a "priority for action". The Noise Advisory Council has recommended noise criteria for the planning of new roads and useful reports by it on aircraft and neighbourhood noise have just been published. Decisions on its recommendations will be announced as soon as possible. A further report on traffic noise is in preparation.

Mr. Marks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Royal Commission's first report said that regulations dealing with traffic noise were not frequently enforced? Will he see to it that in future there is more enforcement of these regulations?

Mr. Griffiths: The problem of enforcement of traffic noise regulations is rather difficult, but I take note of what the hon. Member has said and I am sure that the police will.

Stoke-on-Trent D Road

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is aware of the hardship caused to individual families and firms in Newcastle-under-Lyme arising out of the


construction of the Stoke-on-Trent D road; and whether he will make attempts to minimise these as much as possible.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend has in fact already taken steps to minimise hardship and disturbance.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that since I last heard from him the people of Orford Street, in my constituency, have become subject to flooding for the first time and that they believe that the very difficult conditions in which they will have to live for two years or so entitle them to some compensation?

Mr. Heseltine: The Government's review of compensation has not yet been concluded. We are aware of the real difficulty of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I hope he will understand that we have made every effort to ensure close liaison with the contractors and our resident engineer, and that we have done all we reasonably can for what is bound to be a difficult period until the road is completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Parliamentary Questions

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will now bring forward proposals to extend the time available for Parliamentary Questions on the lines suggested by the Select Committee on Procedure in the previous Parliament.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Last April I indicated to the House that I thought it would be wise to consider the effect on Question Time of the various changes implemented at that time. I am certainly prepared now to consider any representations as a result of experience so far.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not experience so far confirm that if an hon. Member puts a Question down for Oral Answer to one of the Ministers named in Question No. 36 the odds are against his getting an Oral Answer? Does not that indicate that there is inadequate time for Answers to Parliamentary Questions? In view of the wisdom and

quality of the Answers now given, would not the House be benefited by a longer time to enjoy them?

Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with my right hon. Friend's last comment. The House as a whole must consider carefully how it wishes to use its time to the best advantage as between Question Time, Private Notice Questions and Statements, and the normal Business of the House. I am prepared to consider the exact amount of time which is used for each.

Mr. Fernyhough: Would there not be far more time for genuine Questions if Ministers who do not like to answer Questions did not seek to have too many "stooge" Questions put down?

Mr. Whitelaw: I would not accept that. Question Time would be much more profitable if the many odd Questions which are tabled for purely political purposes and which are not designed to seek information were not tabled.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Has it occurred to my right hon. Friend that 24 minutes each week could be added to Question Time if it began at 2.30 p.m. and Prayers were taken beforehand, with Mr. Speaker entering the Chamber at the beginning of Question Time at 2.30 p.m.? Is he aware that that would not rob anyone?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is not for me to pronounce one way or the other on what your personal desires might be in this matter, Mr. Speaker. It is possible to start Question Time 10 minutes earlier if the House so desires. As yet I have not been made aware of any general desire of the House suggesting that this should be done. I am ready to consider it if I am given such information.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is aware of the difficulty experienced by hon. Members in putting Questions for Oral Answer to the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Environment, Defence and Social Services; and what proposals he has to improve the position.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am prepared to consider any particular difficulties which may be represented to me. If changes in the Question roster would help I am always


ready to discuss them through the usual channels.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Arising from that Answer and the Answer to the previous Question, can my right hon. Friend think of any other way in which the seven or eight minutes involved in the Select Committee's recommendations could be better spent than by allowing perhaps eight or nine Oral Questions to Ministers to be fully answered?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am quite prepared to consider that point of view and am grateful to my right hon. Friend for expressing it.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the increasingly unlikely event of this country entering the European Economic Community the scope of Questions of the kind to which his right hon. Friend is referring will be greatly limited, since the E.C.S.C. rules prevent general directives being issued, in which case no more general directive Questions could be put? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to safeguard the rights of the House in this matter?

Mr. Whitelaw: If the hon. Gentleman does not think that we will enter I do not see why he is asking the question.

Parliamentary Debates (Broadcasting)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Lord President of the Council when he expects to set out proposals for the broadcasting of parliamentary debates.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have previously indicated to the House that I agree that there should be an opportunity at the appropriate time for this important issue to be debated again, but I do not anticipate a debate in the immediate future.

Mr. Dalyell: As none of us will know how long this or any other Parliament lasts, could the Lord President say at what stage of a Parliament new Members are sufficiently mature to make a decision on this?

Mr. Whitelaw: This is a very important and serious question. I accept it in that sense. I notice that whenever this subject is raised and I make a hopeful comment about an early decision there are nasty noises all around me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] When I say

that the matter might be delayed a little longer there is a great deal of applause around me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If that is the case we should consider the matter in the context of the various noises made.

Mr. Lane: In view of what my right hon. Friend has done for the standing of Parliament by his part in the Government's decision to allow a free vote at least on this side next week, will lie look sympathetically in the new Session at the likelihood that the standing and understanding of Parliament among the public might be further improved by the properly supervised and edited televising of our procedures?

Mr. Whitelaw: I must make it clear that questions of free votes or otherwise are now, fortunately—in this Parliament as compared with the last—nothing to do with me. The other question is a matter of opinion and I am quite prepared to have it debated.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he were to decide to delay, or advise his right hon. Friend to delay, the whole question of entry into the Common Market he would get even more sympathetic noises from all over the country?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that that point arises on anything to do with broadcasting.

UPPER CLYDE (SHIPBUILDING)

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): With permission, I should like to make a further statement on shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde.
Govan Shipbuilders Limited—the company set up with private capital to bring into effect the Government's wish to see a viable merchant shipbuilding industry on the Upper Clyde—has been faced with difficult problems to surmount before it can commence its task.
A condition of its receiving Government support was that it should enter into satisfactory agreements with its workers or their representatives concerning working practices and wage rates. But


until very recently there was unwillingness on the side of the workers to enter into meaningful discussions with the company to this end.
On the other hand the liquidator was running out of work at Govan and Lint-house, with a threat of heavy redundancy because the shipowners were unwilling, without far-reaching guarantees, to confirm their orders. Moreover, the liquidator was becoming very short of funds.
In these circumstances I have had recent discussions with Mr. Dan McGarvey of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions and subsequently my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry has had talks with the shipowners primarily concerned.
The results of these meetings are:
Mr. McGarvey, with the full agreement of the shop stewards, and I have jointly signed a statement—the text of which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT—undertaking that there would immediately be meaningful discussions with Govan Shipbuilders Limited on the understanding that the Government would give the requisite guarantees to the shipowners to enable work to be maintained. We have further jointly agreed to work together to encourage a purchaser for the Clydebank yard to come forward, and also to consider whether it would be in the economic interest of Govan Shipbuilders Limited to include Scotstoun within the project.
The Minister for Industry is negotiating with the shipowners concerned the terms of guarantees they need to enable them to confirm their orders. The financial commitments already agreed are substantial and I am publishing full details of them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. A further statement will be made when the remaining negotiations are completed. Estimates will be presented to the House in due course. To these will be added the considerable further public funds needed for investment in Govan Shipbuilders Limited in addition to its private funds so long as the company can put before me a fully appraised proposal for a concern capable of attaining long-term viability, including, of course, evidence of satisfactory agreements reached with the unions.
It is already abundantly evident that the ship orders being worked on by the liquidator are likely to realise a heavy loss, as will the new work needed to maintain employment at Govan and Lint-house. Financial guarantees will be required from the Government to enable him to do this and will be included in the further statement to be made. This refutes the assertions that U.C.S. was on the verge of turning the corner into profitability. Moreover, the likely scale of the funds involved in putting a part of U.C.S. on the road to ultimate prosperity reveals very clearly how unreal was the claim that the whole concern could have been saved by the injection of some £6 million. That might have tided the situation over for a few months but was entirely inadequate to set it on the road to viability even if ship orders to sustain all four yards had been at all in view, which they were not.
The following action is now to take place.
I will complete negotiations with the shipowners for the guarantees they need. The unions will enter into meaningful discussions with Govan Shipbuilders Limited.
The study of the Govan-Linthouse project which I had already commissioned will be extended to look at the alternative of the inclusion of Scotstoun.
I am ready to advance up to £1½ million to the liquidator over and above the £4 million already advanced, of which £2·7 million is repayable.
I express the profound hope that all those having the future of shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde at heart will work together to make a success of these endeavours.

Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that after refusing £5 million to £6 million sought by U.C.S. in June he has now been forced to give the liquidator a loan of £5½ million? Will he also confirm that he has abandoned the "Wise Men's Report" based on a two-yard solution, as he is now considering the inclusion of Scotstoun and is promising to make substantial sums available to Clydebank? Will he confirm the assertion of Mr. Douglas, the Deputy Chairman of Govan Shipbuilders, that £30 million will be required from public funds as a result of the Government's policy? Would not


it be more honest to admit that he has been forced into a total retreat by the determined action of the men in U.C.S., the men whom he wholly forgot in the summer and who are now part way to securing their main objective?

Mr. Davies: It is very clear that the right hon. Gentleman's observations were written before he listened to my statement, because in practically every respect the statement dealt specifically with the points he raised. The loan to the liquidator, as the right hon. Gentleman must have just heard me say, is in considerable part reimbursable in any case. [Interruption.] Indeed, they would not only not be reimbursable but would, as I said, only be sufficient to tide it over for a few months pending the next input, and that is undoubted. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the abandonment, as he called it, of the "Wise Men's Report". I made it very clear that Govan Shipbuilders Limited is studying a two-yard project. It has been agreed that it shall in addition study an alternative to see whether the inclusion of Scotstoun could make the project more economic. That in no way indicates any abandonment of the position the Government took up before.
As for Clydebank, to which the right hon. Gentleman said additional money had been promised, the Government have never said anything else but that they would hold eligible for finance under the Local Employment Acts any purchaser of Clydebank coming forward with a viable proposition. The Government still await that. This is in no way a change from the position the Government have consistently taken up.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the cost to Government funds, and mentioned Mr. Douglas's figure. I have no idea, and will not venture one until such time as I have the advantage of a practical project put forward by Govan Shipbuilders Limited and supported by the consultants' work which I have commissioned.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman has missed the point of my question, which is that part of the money given to the liquidator would have been repayable, as would have been the funds made avail-

able to U.C.S. in response to its request in the summer.
Second, the right hon. Gentleman has not given the House any account of the enormous sums of public money which the Deputy Chairman of the company he has set up has publicly said could amount to £30 million, and without that money neither Govan Shipbuilders Limited nor any other solution there could be viable. Will he now give the House the estimate he makes of the total cost of the Government commitment to maintain the policy he has said is totally unchanged since the summer?

Mr. Davies: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I am not inclined to throw forward assessments of estimates without the opportunity to have them studied properly. That tendency has landed us in a good deal of trouble.
The truth is that as far as the advances to the liquidator are concerned it is not that they are susceptible to repayment. There is a reimbursement coming on that, beyond all doubt.
There is no doubt, in the light of subsequent evidence, that any payment made to the company at its moment of absolute crisis would have been simply lost money, but it would have been only a small part of the lost money to follow it.

Mr. Edward Taylor: The news that my right hon. Friend intends to confirm the current contracts of the previous company and the recent announcement of the extension of the naval shipbuilding programme will be greatly welcomed on Clydeside, because more jobs will be secured than had appeared to be the case a few weeks ago. When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to let us know whether the Scotstoun yard can be added to the consortium? Can Govan Shipbuilders Limited now go out looking for more work?

Mr. Davies: I hope very shortly to be able to give confirmation of existing orders. The naval orders do not directly help the yards in question because they are not destined for the production of naval ships, and have not been so used, although clearly those orders will be very welcome on Clydeside. The question of the inclusion or otherwise of Scotstoun in the Govan Shipbuilders project will


arise only when I have in hand the guidance of the company itself, coupled with the report of the consultants. I hope very much to have that in hand before the end of the year.

Mr. Grimond: Assuming that things go as well as the Secretary of State hopes and that shipbuilding continues at Govan-Linthouse and Scotstoun, can he give the House any estimate of the redundancies which will even then result, and can he tell us, bearing in mind the frighteningly high unemployment rate on the Clyde, what other employment the Government can offer to these men?

Mr. Davies: The figures are that at the end of July when the company really went into liquidation firmly the numbers employed were 8,387 people and there are now almost exactly 1,000 less than that. The prospect for future employment, I suggest, has to be seen in a range which, at the low end, starts at the 2,500 figure put forward by the group of experts, but it has been, I think, confidently hoped that the figure might be materially improved, and improved not only by adding the numbers employed in the new project as a result, perhaps, of the inclusion of Scotstoun and perhaps of double-shift working, or, better still, at the Govan-Linthouse yard, but additionally by other employment being offered to the workers at U.C.S. and either on the Lower Clyde or at Yarrow's. Yarrow's must hope that they will be in part beneficiaries of the additional defence orders which will help to this end. The figures are not easy to conjecture, but look as though they may be considerably less in terms of redundancies than those which have been mentioned.

Mr. Burden: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to an observation by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) on 2nd August this year when he stated the policy of the last Government and that he had written to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and told them that labour practices should be altered and that there should be a slimming of the labour force by some thousands of men. His recent passionate outbursts on behalf of workers on the Clyde appear to some of us just a teeny-weeny bit phoney.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend cites one of many interesting observations which the right hon. Gentleman gave vent to in times gone by, but, clearly, they are not those which are present in his mind at the moment.

Mr. Small: I will study in depth later the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made, but may I ask him this? In terms of dealing with the yards now known as lame duck industries, could there be separate guarantees as for B.S.A. by the involvement of the E.C.G.D. as a long-term banker—as for the rest of the operations of B.S.A.?

Mr. Davies: No. The situation is that with ships, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the arrangement for providing credit guarantees is different from though analogous to that of the E.C.G.D. This will be deployed in relation both to orders based on home delivery and export delivery on the Upper Clyde.

Mr. Brewis: Has my right hon. Friend had any recent approaches from outside interests to take over the Clydebank yard?

Mr. Davies: Approaches have been made—primarily to the liquidator, because he has the task of disposing of the Clydebank yard. It is his responsibility, though, of course, I and my Department have been much engaged in discussions with people who might be interested. There is at the present moment to the best of my knowledge, only one current practical interest in the purchase of the Clydebank yard for shipbuilding. This is one of a number which he is evaluating of alternative possibilities here and on the Continent, and is unlikely to reach a definite conclusion within the course of the next month or two.

Mr. Rankin: I should like to draw the right hon. Gentleman a little father along the road on which he is now progressing, and in what has been achieved so far. May I ask him to realise that this trouble started in 1964, and that the men concerned have been the sufferers and that we want to try to prevent them from being so any longer? Would he, therefore, take the step of suggesting to those concerned—and using his influence to ensure this—that two members of the trade unions with which he has been dealing should be appointed to the new


board? The men may not have money to invest, but their lives, and the lives of their children and wives, are invested, and that is a greater investment than any amount of money. Would he give them that chance to be on the board to talk about the problems of the men—not only in the yards but in their homes, which are just as important, particularly to anyone who knows Govan? I urge him to take up this point.

Mr. Davies: I am, of course, sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman says, and I know that the Chairman and management of Govan Shipbuilders Limited are, too; but the hon. Gentleman will realise that this is their task. They are a private company and it is their task to decide on who will be on the board. Certainly, however, as I have said, I am fully sympathetic to what he has said.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether his statement this afternoon means that the Government will be giving completion guarantees in respect of orders for ships at Govan-Linthouse, and, if so, what assurances have the Government already received about labour practices in the yard? Secondly, in respect of the query by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), is it a fact that from upwards of 1,000 vacancies are current at Scott-Lithgow and others at Yarrow's?

Mr. Davies: On that point there is no doubt that there is a substantial number of vacancies available at Scott-Lithgow's, and there might be at Yarrow's, but that is not at this moment certain. On the question of completion guarantees, as my hon. Friend will see from the paper I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT, there is an undertaking from the unions in relation to this general agreement to ensure that the ships now given guarantees or to be given guarantees will be built with due despatch and efficiency. I forget the precise words, but they are of this kind. I think it is a meaningful guarantee given by the unions.

Mr. Douglas: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that what he is in process of achieving is the painful restructuring of the industry on the Upper Clyde? Secondly, would he confirm or

deny that the taking on board of the Irish Shipping Company orders—four bulk carriers at £13 million—will result in substantial losses being taken on board by the new company? How does he presume to compensate the company for these orders?

Mr. Davies: I can but agree with the hon. Member that what is taking place is a painful restructuring, but it is also a belated one, if I may say so. The losses which Govan Shipbuilders might incur as a result of taking on the Irish Shipping Company orders are, of course, a very real problem and will figure as part of the whole financial project which Govan Shipbuilders will have to put before the Government when it puts its proposals up. The hon. Gentleman's remark, of course, underlines the fact that these, as other ships in the order book, were loss makers and are loss makers. Therefore, that more than ever emphasises the fact that U.C.S. was a loss maker—now and in the future.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the more promising prospects on the Lower Clyde are not being overlooked in the circumstances of available skilled labour, and whether everything necessary is being done to help the company to develop, including the provision of the necessary houses?

Mr. Davies: The position on the Lower Clyde is also very much under discussion with my Department and the interests of the shipbuilding industry there are very much in our minds. I think I can assure my hon. Friend that everything within the reasonable range of my Department's activities will be made available.

Mr. Buchan: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in the Lower Clyde, which I happen to represent, we have an unemployment rate of between 10 and 11 per cent.? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the 1,000 jobs on the Upper Clyde, but we cannot get these skilled men. On what basis does the right hon. Gentleman assert that the figures now show that the company would not be viable, when every single independent piece of evidence from Professor Alexander, Ken Douglas and the Shipbuilding Industry Board, which reported


to him in May, all asserted that it would be viable? Will the right hon. Gentleman let us see the evidence on which he is basing this curious assumption?

Mr. Davies: I realise that there is a serious state of unemployment on the Lower Clyde, too, but the truth is that there are vacancies in the Lower Clyde shipyards for skilled professions, and the hon. Gentleman knows that this is so.
On the question of losses, or the turning into profitability, to which so much reference has been made, I recall to the hon. Gentleman's mind that Mr. Kelly, who proposed to take over the Clydebank yard at one stage, gave up because he foresaw £5 million losses. I also recall to his mind that the liquidator has made it clear that on the ships currently being built there will be substantial losses. Govan Shipbuilders Limited in respect of the ships which are currently under discussion in relation to guarantees are facing substantial losses. I find it difficult to reconcile these facts with the general statements which are made by others.

Mr. Ross: Am I right in thinking that in the agreement signed by the men and the unions the men have not withdrawn from the position that their principal aim is the continuation of shipbuilding at the four yards?
Secondly, am I right in assuming that the figures the right hon. Gentleman has given today, which, with the guarantees in respect of the five ships being built, greatly exceed anything that has hitherto been mentioned, relate only to the present and immediately past position, and that the right hon. Gentleman has not yet said what special launching aid will be required for Govan-Linthouse? Will he make it absolutely clear that Govan-Linthouse is not yet off the ground, and that it will require a considerable sum of money from the right hon. Gentleman once it is off the ground?
Lastly, I press on him, as I have done before, that he must make an effort to get a solution to the Clydebank problem. He cannot leave this town and the people there in these desperate straits. The unemployment figures in Glasgow are much less than the figures in this area. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the aid which he offers to any incoming shipbuilder to the area under the Local

Employment Acts will not begin to meet the problem?

Mr. Davies: On the last point, I do not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman means. The aid to incoming industry under the Local Employment Acts is, on the contrary, exceedingly substantial, providing the conditions are right to accord it.
Of course I recognise, as was said in the joint statement, that the principal aim of the unions is to seek means to preserve employment in all four yards in the U.C.S. This is in the statement which will be circulated with the OFFICIAL REPORT. Furthermore, I have said very clearly, and repeat, that I will do all I can to encourage a purchaser to come forward for Clydebank. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that he does not need to press me on the matter, the matter has been completely stated.
On the question of Govan-Linthouse not yet being off the ground, I agree with him. It is for this reason that I hope there will be the concerted effort needed to get it off the ground. This is what I have been looking forward to.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned launching aid. It is true that none of the figures I have quoted as yet have covered any specific aid to ensure that the Govan-Linthouse project in fact emerges as a viable operation.

Following is the information:

RECORD OF A MEETING BETWEEN MR. JOHN DAVIES AND SIR JOHN EDEN AND MR. MCGARVEY AND MR. SERVICE ON 12TH OCTOBER, 1971.

1. The representatives of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions made the following points:

(a) The principal objective was to seek means of preserving employment in all four yards of the U.C.S.
(b) In relation to the orders immediately needed at Govan to facilitate the establishment of Govan Shipbuilders Limited, the C.S.E.U. were prepared to give assurances as to the contribution of the work force to the timely and efficient delivery of the ships, providing the Government was prepared to give the requisite guarantees to the ship owners in question, and providing the liquidator was prepared to set in hand work on those orders.
(c) As soon as the arrangements envisaged in (b) above had been made they were prepared immediately to enter meaningful negotiations regarding working practices,


wage rates etc., with Govan Shipbuilders Limited. These negotiations would cover the operation of the Govan and Linthouse yards and would be extended to cover Scotstoun as well, providing the feasibility study showed the inclusion of the last-named yard to be in the economic interest of the whole project.

2. Mr. Davies agreed in view of the undertakings given by the representatives of the C.S.E.U. to seek urgently to finalise negotiations with the ship owners in question with a view to reaching agreement upon the guarantees required to secure the confirmation of the orders above referred to. He welcomed Mr. McGarvey's assurance that in these circumstances talks would quickly begin to secure the establishment of Govan Shipbuilders Limited.
3. It was furthermore accepted that the Government and the C.S.E.U. would make every effort to encourage a purchaser for Clydebank Yard and that such purchaser would be eligible for substantial financial assistance under the Local Employment Acts. The C.S.E.U. considered that this would create a proper climate for the meaningful discussions with Govan Shipbuilders Limited.

Signed:


JOHN DAVIES.
DANIEL MCGARVEY.


JOHN EDEN.
J. M. SERVICE.

Details of Financial Commitments and Liabilities Undertaken in Relation to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders since 14th June, 1971:

PROVISION OF WORKING CAPITAL TO LIQUIDATOR

1. Payments made to the liquidator total £4 million of which approximately £2·7 million is recoverable. It has been agreed that up to a further £1½ million will be made available as additional working capital.

LIABILITIES ASSUMED

2. In respect of four ships now being built with the aid of a bank loan guaranteed by the Department under Section 7 of the Shipbuilding Industry Act, 1971, an undertaking has been given that if the ships are not delivered by certain dates, the Department will relinquish its right to recover from the shipowners any payments it may be called upon to make under the guarantee.

3. A guarantee similar to those under Section 7 of the Shipbuilding Industry Act 1967 has been given to another ship-owner in respect of one ship. A guarantee offered in February 1971 had not been completed at the time of liquidation and, since the Act precludes a guarantee if the ship-builder is in liquidation, an extra-statutory guarantee was necessary. The maximum potential liability which is estimated at £2·49 million will count against the present limit of £700 million for guarantees under Section 7 of the Act.

OTHER EXPENDITURE

4. Expenditure and commitments have also been incurred on consultancy and advisory services totalling less than £100,000.

UNITED KINGDOM AND EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEBATE)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus), I want to say a word about the Common Market debate. At noon today I knew of about 140 right hon. and hon. Members who wished to take part. It will be exceedingly difficult for the Chair to deal with a list as long as this, particularly as about a quarter of those who have written to me have not told me on which side they wish to speak. I will do my best to meet the convenience of hon. Members who have told me that they cannot be here all the time. On the other hand, they do not necessarily deserve an advantage over those who are prepared to be here throughout.
I will also try to give some indication fairly early on tomorrow after the debate begins to those who are likely to catch my eye during tomorrow's and Friday's debates, but there can be no rigid lists; patience is sometimes unexpectedly rewarded.
As always, my task will be made easier if right hon. and hon. Members realise that a degree of compression does not necessarily make a speech less effective.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to your statement, Mr. Speaker, I should perhaps add on a question of daily arrangements that the Government propose a suspension until midnight tomorrow, Thursday, 21st October. We should not propose any suspension on Friday. As to suspensions on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week. I suggest that that should depend on consultation with you about the number of hon. Members asking to take part. The last day of the debate will be concluded at 10 o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Frank McManus: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
the arrest of Cerian O'Kane, a lecturer of Queen's University, Belfast, and the behaviour of the British Army in holding the Students' Union under siege.
This specific matter is important because the British Army, by using the Special Powers Act to lay siege to the Students' Union at Queen's University just because some speakers inside wanted to speak against the Common Market, is committing a serious breach of academic freedom which could have repercussions elsewhere in student bodies throughout these Islands.
It is important because it lends further credence to the allegation of brutality by the British Army and because an eminent surgeon who has experience of the British Army and who was formerly with the Colonial Office has gone on record to say that he has examined detainees who had suffered torture.
This application should have urgent consideration because allegations of torture will adversely affect the negotiations regarding the Common Market. This matter has already brought the Government into disrepute in international circles and a case may shortly be brought in Strasbourg. A prominent politician in America has publicly stated that the

British Army should withdraw its forces from the North of Ireland.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent attention, namely,
the arrest of Cerian O'Kane, a lecturer of Queen's University, Belfast, and the behaviour of the British Army in holding the Students' Union under siege.
The hon. Member was kind enough to give me notice some time ago that he intended to make this application.
The matter is for me to decide. My decision does not reflect upon the sincerity with which the hon. Member puts forward the application. Under the Standing Order I have to take the decision. I am afraid that I cannot give his application precedence.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Marten: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I received a telegram from the Constitutional Association of Guernsey expressing anxiety about the Common Market, and, by coincidence, the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) received a similar telegram. We came to see you yesterday to seek your advice because—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What the hon. Gentleman has just said is quite accurate, but I have to rule him out of order.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

PUBLICITY FOR APPLICATIONS AFFECTING CONSERVATION AREAS

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: During the Second Reading debate I recognised the narrow scope of the debate permitted on a Bill of this nature and asked the Government to keep an open mind on changes where required. I hope the House will accept that in drafting my Amendments I tried to keep strictly in order. However, I do not quarrel with the fact that my Amendments have not been selected, because I received a courteous and full explanation why, despite my care, they were still out of order.
I feel that on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" I should say that the reason these Amendments were out of order highlights my earlier point, that there is a need for a change in the law. I tried to cover the point that at the moment there is need for a notice to be exhibited on the land when planning permission is applied for, and I tried to draft Amendments so that there should be a notice or notices as appropriate. However, these matters are out of order because this would mean a change in the law.
The House will recognise that in the case of a small plot one notice may well be adequate, but for a large plot one notice is not adequate. The area concerned may have many sides accessible to the public and it is possible to place the notice on the least frequented side. The object of the notice is to protect the public, yet at present an unscrupulous or slipshod developer can observe the letter rather than the spirit of the law. I ask the House to recognise that an early

change is required since at the moment the public are not being properly protected. The public are not generally aware of their rights in this matter, and often the time and opportunity for objection has passed before they become even aware of what is happening.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) was mentioned by him on the Second Reading of the Bill. For reasons which have been explained to him, any Amendment in the context of a Consolidation Bill would be inadmissible because we are here concerned simply to see whether or not Section 28 reproduces the existing law. It reproduces the corresponding provisions of the Civic Amenities Act. 1971, introduced some years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), and at this stage one cannot go beyond saying that that is what it does. The point the hon. Gentleman raises is one on which more than one hon. Member has expressed concern and it is a legitimate point to be considered.
Section 28 applies to the duty of local authorities. Secion 26 applies to the duty of individual developers. So within the limits of Section 28 one can expect a local authority to be that much more energetic and effective in discharging its duty. It is right to say that the hon. Gentleman's point has caused concern and is under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; but it would be wrong for me, with the limited authority I have in the context of these proceedings, to make any grandiloquent promises on behalf of my right hon. Friend. Certainly the point has been noted and is understood in the context of this limited debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 29 to 184 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 185

POWER TO REFUSE TO CONFIRM PURCHASE NOTICE IN RESPECT OF OFFICE PREMISES.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 168, line 10,


leave out "that section" and insert "section 74 of this Act".
This Amendment is simply to correct a drafting error. As the Clause stands at the moment, there is reference in line 10 to "that section", which would be taken as referring back to Section 81(2) in line 7. That is an erroneous reference in the light of the consolidation which has been undertaken. The reference should be to Section 74, which is where the corresponding provisions now appear in this consolidated Bill. I hope that the function of the Amendment will be understood by the House, even if not everybody has been able to follow the exact mechanics of it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 185, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 186 to 295 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 10 agreed to.

Schedule 11

CONTROL OF WORKS FOR DEMOLITION, ALTERATION OR EXTENSION OF LISTED BUILDINGS.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 301, leave out line 14.
This is another correction of an error. The paragraph of the Schedule as it originally stood limited the exceptions in the case of listed building consents granted by the Secretary of State to those granted to him in Part IV of the Act or under this Schedule. There are other provisions in the Act whereby he can grant such consent. If one eliminates the limiting words in line 14 and extends paragraph 6 of Schedule 11 widely enough to cover all the cases in the Bill, on that basis the drafting Amendment enables the Bill to make more sense.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 12 to 22 agreed to.

Schedule 23

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 353, line 12, leave out "(c) and (d)".
This is to correct a miniscule error in a consequential amendment which the Bill makes in the Civil Aviation Act, 1971. It removes the reference to the two lettered sub-paragraphs and enables the consequential amendment to apply to the whole of subsection (9) of the relevant Act which is being replaced.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 23, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 24 and 25 agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent signified].

Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether this would be an appropriate moment at which to seek your guidance on a point of order. It was clear yesterday to the managers of the Government's business that, today, we were not likely to spend very much time on the Bill that we have just completed. Clearly, therefore, the opportunity was open to the Government to put on today's Order Paper other Bills which have gone through the full stages of the House in the sense of Second Reading and Committee stages and which now merely await the formality or otherwise of Third Reading on the Floor of the House.
I am concerned especially with the industrial safety Bill known as the Employed Persons (Safety) Bill, which is awaited so eagerly by millions of trade


unionists because of what it does for the safety of working people. The Government have not taken the opportunity to have it inserted in today's Order Paper. If they had done so, I should have given them every co-operation and they would have earned the thanks of millions of ordinary working people.
The Government's action, or lack of it, shows a great deal of carelessness, quite apart from their inattention to the real problems facing the country. Clearly there has been a good deal of mismanagement on the part of the Government. The Prayers which we are now about to consider would normally be taken after the day's Business. I hope that the problem can be rectified. One possible solution would be an assurance from the Leader of the House that an opportunity to consider the Measure will be provided next week.

4.11 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) has made his point, and I shall not take up any of his assertions. He knows the considered policy that I have always adopted towards Private Members' Bills. I do not differentiate between them. Some of them are extremely estimable. But they have their chance in Private Members' time. In my view, it was not right to provide Government time for Private Members' Bills, and that is the reason for the decision which has been taken.

WOOD CHIPBOARD (ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES)

4.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I beg to move,
That the Anti-Dumping Duty (No. 4) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 1635), dated 7th October, 1971. a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th October, be approved.
This Order, made under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1969, imposes anti-dumping duties ranging from 50p. to £3 a cubic metre on imports of certain wood chipboard from producers in Norway, Sweden, Finland and the Irish Republic from 8th July this

year, and from producers in Portugal from 20th August. The duties confirm provisional charges to anti-dumping duty imposed by the Anti-Dumping (Provisional Charge to Duty) (No. 3) Order, 1971, operative from 8th July, 1971, and a subsequent amending Order, operating from 20th August, 1971, which are revoked by the present Order.
These duties are, however, only retrospective and end on 7th October, 1971. After that date, the producers concerned in all countries have undertaken to raise their export prices to the minimum level which the Department considers necessary to eliminate material injury to the U.K. industry. The duties and the agreed price increases do not in any case exceed the margins of dumping found on representative sales to the United Kingdom. So long as these undertakings are observed, no duties will be imposed.
The anti-dumping action which we have taken follows a thorough investigation of all the facts by the Department of Trade and Industry in response to an anti-dumping application by the U.K. producers of chipboard. This has entailed visits by our officials to all the producers concerned and a detailed investigation of the position of the main British producers by our professional accountants. As a result, we were satisfied that dumping was occurring and that this had caused material injury to the British industry. We are also satisfied, after considering carefully the balance of interests, that it is in the national interest that anti-dumping action should be taken in this case.
I invite the House to approve this Order.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: As the hon. Gentleman says, this is an Order imposing anti-dumping duties on five countries in respect of their exports of chipboard to Britain.
We do not object to the Order. However, since it is not specified in the Order, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could enlighten us, first, about whom it is designed to protect. In his short statement, he referred to the United Kingdom producers of chipboard. I think that he aught to advise us which firms are involved, where they are situated, and the extent to which they have suffered material injury.


It is all very well saying that he is satisfied that they have suffered material injury. The hon. Gentleman should demonstrate to the House that they have suffered material injury before an Order of this kind is approved.
Finally, perhaps he will say what employment might be jeopardised if the dumping of chipboard is continued.
I think that answers to those questions should be given before the Order is approved.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Grant: If I may deal briefly with the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, the application was made by Airscrew Weyroc, which is the United Kingdom producer responsible for about 80 per cent. of the production of chipboard in this country. The application was supported by a few other much Smaller producers. Effectively, all the producers of chipboard in the country support the application.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, we are satisfied that material injury has been suffered. It may be of interest to the House to know that the firm to which I have referred and which is responsible for 80 per cent. of British production itself largely operates in a development area in Scotland. We are advised and satisfied that it has had to declare redundant 80 employees as a result of loss of business due to dumped imports, and that further dismissals will almost inevitably be necessary unless anti-dumping action is taken.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: I understand that the firm is also operating in East Anglia, in a town expansion scheme at Thetford. It has been worried about dumping in the past. I welcome the action of my hon. Friend's Department.

Mr. Anthony Grant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

EDUCATION (STUDENT UNIONS' FUNDS)

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the provisions in the Awards (First Degree, etc. Courses) Regulations 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 1297) relating to the Subscriptions to Students Unions and similar bodies.
This item of business originally appeared on the Order Paper as a Prayer against Regulations which had been laid, but those Regulations were withdrawn during the Summer Recess and were replaced by consolidation Regulations which are the ones referred to in the Motion. The way in which our right to pray against the Regulations was preserved was by this Motion being tabled. It is a Motion to take note, and I imagine, therefore, that we have at least as wide a range in it as we should have had on a Prayer.
The point which I and a number of my hon. Friends wish to raise on this occasion concerns the use and supervision of the funds of students unions. The way in which they may be paid out of public funds is that the Regulations referred to in the Motion specify, among the matters which a local authority must cover by its grant to a student, subscriptions to clubs, membership of which is made compulsory by the university or other institution.
This has led to the universities and the other institutions of higher education making membership of students unions compulsory in order that the subscriptions to them shall be paid by the ratepayers as part of the grant. This in itself is not necessarily a matter which would cause concern, because one recognises that clubs and students unions are part of the life of a university, but some disquiet has been aroused by the way that this system has worked.
First, in order that all clubs shall be paid for in this way out of public funds, the universities have so arranged things that the students union, membership of which is compulsory, embraces in its financial arrangements the support of all university clubs, whether political or other. Membership of those clubs is free, or virtually free, to the students, and support of them comes in a grant from


the students union with funds which have been paid under these Regulations.
The average level of subscription per student for this purpose to the students unions is about £11 a year. Since this applies to all university students and to many in higher education, the total sum involved is about £3 million a year. There are approximately 50 universities to which most of the money goes, so that, broadly speaking, the average sum being considered in each university is £50,000 a year, though it varies a good deal and in some cases it is over £100,000 a year.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: My hon. and learned Friend has quoted the figure of £3 million as the total sum involved. Will he tell the House the basis for that figure?

Mr. Bell: Yes. It is probably on the low side, because I think that it is always better to understate rather than to overstate the case. There are 228,000 university students. If the average paid for each student were £11, that would come to at least £2¼ million. I am allowing the remaining £¾ million for students at institutions of higher education, of whom there are about 200,000. but not all are covered by these arrangements, the average payment per student being £3 a year, not £11. Therefore, it would be about £3,200,000, but I am calling it about £3 million a year. As I said, for each university one is therefore thinking in terms of about £50,000 a year, though it runs up to over £100,000 for the larger universities.
The first comment to be made is that over this substantial sum of money there is absolutely no control or supervision; there is no element of accountability whatever. It goes to the students unions automatically under, one might say, the provisions of the law, and they are accountable for it to nobody. They can make such rules as they like and are accountable for those rules to nobody. It seems strange to put sums of this magnitude into the hands of young men who are having their first experience of handling money when there is no provision for scrutiny, accountability or supervision. Nevertheless, it is right to say that, generally speaking, these funds are properly applied to the kind of purposes which Parliament would have had in mind in making the arrangement. It

would not be right to suggest that there is any massive misuse or misappropriation of these funds, and, in a sense, it reflects credit upon those concerned that this should be so.
Nevertheless, I must add that there are all too many instances of serious misuse of the ratepayers' money which is provided in this way. Those misuses fall into three main categories. The first is the financing of activities which cannot conceivably be called academic—I refer to political demonstrations and the like—the second is paying the fines and legal expenses of students, and the third is the favouring of Left-wing activities in political organisations. I could, from my records, give innumerable examples of these, but so much publicity has been given to them in the past that I shall confine myself to a few contemporary examples.
First, I deal with the misuse of funds by their application to purposes which plainly fall outside the academic sphere. Last year Sussex University voted £100 to support a local dustmen's strike, £60 was given to the Black Panthers, and various sums were voted to pay the fines of students convicted of public disorders. Tomorrow, at a general meeting of the Students Union at Sussex University there is a motion to amend the budget for the year to give £1,300 to outside political causes: namely, £800 to provide school milk in a primary school in Sussex and £500 to Bangla Desh. That is not for the relief of suffering in East Bengal, which would still be outside the proper use of this money but which one could understand, but for the organisation called Bangla Desh. That will be considered at a general meeting of the union at Sussex University tomorrow.
I should emphasise that I am speaking not about collections of money raised by the students from among themselves or by some activity which they would then devote to supporting dustmen's strikes or political movements in various parts of the world, but about ratepayers' money which has been levied compulsorily as part of the support of higher education.
This term Merton College, Oxford—the junior common rooms at both Oxford and Cambridge get their funds in this way from the ratepayers—has voted £80 to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders; another


college, the name of which escapes me, has voted £25 to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders; and Kent University has also made a contribution to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. All this may gladden the heart of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but it is not what the ratepayers had in mind when they paid their rate demands.
On political favouritism, unfairness in the treatment of clubs, again keeping to modern instances I cite the case at Southampton University last term where the grant to the Conservative Club was withdrawn, in reality because it had elected a president who was a member of the Monday Club, but ostensibly the reason given was that it was wrong to support from union funds a club which supported an anti-student Government—whatever that meant. That was reversed only at the end of last term, after no fewer than three general meetings of the union.
At York University there was a motion to take away the grant from the Conservative Association on the remarkable ground of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's tax cuts in his Budget. That was defeated only after long and vigorous debate. The Monday Club was in the possibly fortunate position of having no grant that could be taken away because it is refused a grant by York University on the ground of duplication with the Conservative Association. That is strange, because at the time the Conservative Association was controlled by P.E.S.T. But even stranger than that was the fact that at the same time the university union was giving six separate grants to Socialist societies and, in addition, a separate general grant to the Socialist Federation which comprised them.
In addition to those cases of clubs there were two, in a sense, more serious cases, one at a university in Wales, and one at a university in England, where a serious attempt was made to use the threat of withdrawal of union membership to prevent an undergraduate who had passed his final examination from proceeding to take his degree. The argument advanced was that since membership of the union was compulsory, someone could not be a member of the university unless he was a member of the union. Therefore, if the union took away his union membership, his membership

of the university lapsed, and he could not take his degree.
Both those were attempts to prevent someone from taking a degree on political grounds, and although they failed in the end, there was a moment when, incredible as it seems, it appeared that they might succeed.
Most of these things happen not, of course, with the consent of the general body of students in the university, who have far more sense than that, but by the abuse of student union general meetings by active caucuses which requisition a general meeting and pack it. The union has a rule which requires only a small quorum. It is therefore a valid meeting, and all kinds of absurd notions can be, and are, passed, and misuses of funds, which are really scandalous, are authorised.
This is a matter which engaged the attention of the Select Committee on Education in the 1969 Session. We took a good deal of evidence about it, we reported on it, and we made a recommendation which I am sorry to say has not been implemented. It was a recommendation which, unlike some of the recommendations of that Committee, had support from both sides of the House. We said:
That there are difficulties is conceded by the National Union of Students, because they themselves have recommended the acceptance of model rules by the Student Unions. We"—
that is the Committee—
do not think that this is sufficient. There should be a central authority with powers similar to those exercised by the Registrar of Friendly Societies over trade unions and no Student Union should be recognised for purposes of Union grant unless it is registered with, and its constitution approved by, that central authority. We regard such a provision as compatible with full Student Union autonomy. We are only concerned to provide that the limits within which that autonomy is exercised shall be properly defined and that all those who are automatically members should have adequate safeguards to ensure that their affairs are properly conducted.
That is normally described as our recommendation that there should be a Registrar of Student Unions. It is only a matter of common sense that when we entrust these large annual sums of money to young men and women, who are often only 18 or 19 years old—and this is public money—there should be some kind of scrutiny.
First, their rules should make sense. For example, in a university of 5,000 members 40 or 50 should not be regarded as a quorum for a union meeting, a figure which allows it to be packed at once.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that whatever the age of the recipient of public money there should be public scrutiny?

Mr. Bell: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was merely underlining the position by saying that when the recipients are as young and as inexperienced as these students are, the absence of public scrutiny, which one might take for granted with adults, becomes all the more absurd. It is putting temptation in the way of very young people.
The recommendation by the Select Committee has particular force when one remembers that membership of these unions is compulsory. Nobody can say that he will not be a member of a union, that he will dissociate himself from all its doings; he has to be a member. In almost every case that we examined and took evidence about we found there was no limit to the number of general meetings that could be called. In some universities they can, and do, have two or three meetings a week, and it is only a matter of going on until the sensible people who want to work are exhausted. The people who want to get their way can then call another meeting, dominate it, and make these donations and pass resolutions to misapply funds in the way that I have stated.
This matter has not been allowed to sleep. My hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate knows that many of us have been pressing him, by correspondence and in other ways, for some action to be taken. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have joined us in applying pressure, but so far nothing has been done. I hope that we shall not get lost in consultation on a subject like this. By the time one waits for the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals the N.U.S., the N.U.S. in Scotland, Uncle Tom Cobley, and many other influential and important people to meet an enormous amount of time will have passed, and some universities will perhaps have disappeared into the mists of time.
There are two things that can be done to solve the problem. First, we could make membership of unions voluntary. But if we did that we would have to amend the Regulations before us because at present it is a case of "no compulsion, no money". It is like that, It is tightly linked. Money from the public is linked with compulsory membership. If membership were voluntary, they would have to pay for themselves. The first thing to do is to break that link. On principle, I think that that is the right thing to do, because the student unions ought to have to appeal to their members. If they do not produce the goods, they will not get members, and that would be a good thing.
But that would not solve the problem, because large sums of money—£50,000, £60,000 or perhaps £70,000—would still be paid from public funds each year for those who were members and took the subvention from the rates. Therefore, there ought to be proper constitutions for the unions, and proper scrutiny of their activities. Even with voluntary membership, which, as a principle, I favour, it would still be necessary to have a Registrar of Student Unions.
As the problem is so clear, and because the abuses, unfortunately, are growing and accumulating—I have referred to the issue, which is to be raised tomorrow, of providing £1,300; that is a bigger sum than we have had in the past, and they are getting bolder and more absurd—I do not think that we can sleep on this any longer. We really must have action now to stop what is a bad abuse, even though it affects only a small proportion of the total money that is obtained from the ratepayers. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to put some specific proposals before us.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Barry Jones: I do not want to take a great deal of time, but I am somewhat disappointed, although impressed, by the case made by the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). Perhaps it might help if we noted what student unions in their entirety set out to do for their members. The first thing I would emphasise is that they have a social goal and try to provide for their members in recreational


and catering matters. Second, they have cultural and sporting activities. Both these things, of course, are very much grant-aided from subscriptions. Third, in an increasingly important way, student unions represent their members internally, vis-à-vis the lecturing staff and the principal, and also externally.
Taking into account these three points, one could say that student unions make a tremendous contribution in the colleges of education, technical colleges and universities. I am aware, from my own experience and from observations, that many students live in lodgings far from the centres of the colleges and universities. Indeed, these campuses are often far flung in themselves, and the student union is in effect the only place where there can be a reasonable focus. So any measures ill-conceived and hastily taken which could seriously affect the unions could have a bad effect all along the line on the educational scene.
Much has been said about the Southampton case, which I think was wrong. It is of course notorious and I suppose that all hon. Members have condemned what happened. But I know that the National Union of Students has tried to persuade, and is still considering how it can persuade, such universities in such situations to consider the feelings not only of the House but of the whole student population and of public opinion generally.
I urge some caution here. It might be a good idea to legislate differently and not to take a crude solution to what is a very small, even minute, if ultimately proven, abuse of a generally accepted system. General pressure rather than legislation and crude approaches could be more effective.
If we follow through the arguments, we see that they might lead to a situation which we did not like. We could see the break-up of college and university communities and of the communal life of our higher education, with increasing divisions among the students themselves which would undermine progress in higher education.
There are also dangers in ill-conceived action leading to much more militant student action which hon. Members would not want, in some spheres anyway. This could be nurtured by resentment, so I

offer a word of caution. Hon. Members should take great care when trying to remedy what is not necessarily a huge problem.
Fourth, if hon. Members had their way, there would be an increasing lack of communication in the colleges of education, universities and technical colleges. When I visited colleges and universities in the course of my job, I was amazed at the enormous amount of co-operation between individual student unions and the administration. The president of a student union would meet his principal or senior lecturing staff more or less every day to sort out problems. In these situations, student unions bring upon themselves enormous credit. Hon. Members might consider this co-operation and usefulness before bringing forward propositions like this.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member is making a very moderate speech, much of which I agree with, but would he not concede that it is because many of us applaud this splendid approach that we are so concerned that there should be a minority who abuse public funds? Does he not think that there should be some control?

Mr. Jones: I think that everyone would take that point, but in seeking to remedy such a situation, one may create a far worse one. I was directing my remarks to the international scene, where students are increasingly more important in public opinion, in making observations and in taking action in certain political situations. One of the glories of the system in this country, where student unions have a reasonable and decent status in the educational scene is that we have reasonably responsible unions. Therefore, great care should be taken in remedying such a situation as occurred at Southampton.
Finally, I would point to the tremendous contribution of the National Union of Students for well over a generation to our educational scene. I do not wish to gild the lily, but its leadership of students generally and of student unions in particular has been most praiseworthy. It has been sane, responsible and forward-looking.
The N.U.S. and the student unions have thrown up a remarkable number of leaders and administrators—Mr. Jack Straw, perhaps, certainly Mr. Trevor


Fisk, who is a very able administrator and responsible leader in higher educational system, Mr. Geoffrey Martin, Mr. Gwynn Morgan, who is of considerable fame now in political life, and Mr. Fred Jarvis, who is now Deputy General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers. The list is long, but in every case we see the point proven that the student unions throw up tremendous leaders and men of great capabilities. Any action by hon. Members opposite which led to the fragmentation of organised student life could result in society and the community losing such able men.
Dare I point out to the stout men among hon. Members opposite that they themselves should remember their youth and that student unions have every right to try in their own way to take a radical approach to the problems which they see facing society?
I am glad to see the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), in his place. He holds an honoured position in the student community. I was rather surprised, therefore, to read in The Times of 16th September of certain propositions which the hon. Gentleman put to student leaders. I cannot believe that he would wish to go along with some of the solutions which have been proposed by certain hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have too high a regard of him to think that.
One of the joys of being elected to this House is the prospect one has of observing how policies are formulated, presented and executed. I look forward to seeing how the problem which was outlined so ably by the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South is squared with what I believe to be essential, and that is the need to keep student unions together, unified and responsible.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) appealed to us to recall our youth, which is always a dangerously appealing call. Some of us like to think that that time is not too far distant.
Although the hon. Gentleman made an attractive and strongly-argued case for student unions and the National Union of Students, I suggest that that is not in itself the matter which we are discuss-

ing. We are concerned to decide whether these bodies should be financed out of taxpayers and ratepayers funds.
The case he made for the valuable role which student unions perform suggests that if they are so valuable for the student body as a whole, perhaps it would not be unreasonable for the student body to be asked to finance these valuable activities. That is the crux of the argument.
In his extremely cogent remarks, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) mentioned the circumstances of this debate. We thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for making this debate possible by placing this Motion on the Paper. I hope that the Under-Secretary will explain, for the benefit of those who are not well-versed in the procedures of this House, how it came about that the Order against which my hon. and learned Friend prayed as soon as it was tabled in June was then incorporated, during the Recess, into a consolidation Measure, which invalidated that Prayer before it could be debated.
Put simply, unless the Leader of the House had placed this Motion before the House today, our Prayer would have fallen without discussion. I accept that the Order to which the Prayer related was, as my hon. and learned Friend explained, intended to be limited in duration and was designed purely to put right the situation which existed following the 1970 Act.
But my hon. Friends and I are concerned precisely with the situation that was created by that Act. We had taken the precaution to ensure that there would be an opportunity to discuss this matter, and it is mystifying that the Department should have taken action, perhaps inadvertently, to render such discussion impossible. I hope that the Under-Secretary will clear up this procedural point.
I listened with great interest to the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend, who has followed these matters closely for a long time. He was a distinguished member of the Select Committee in 1969, to whose recommendations he referred. Many of us share his anxieties about some of the curious activities in which some student unions—admittedly, as the hon.


Member for Flint, East rightly pointed out, this relates to a small minority of them—have become involved in recent months.
I wish to look briefly at some of the wider aspects of the issue. My concern is twofold. First, I am not at all clear that the sums currently allocated out of ratepayer and taxpayer expenditure to cover the cost of compulsory student union fees are wisely so allocated. I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies to the debate he will not take the line he took in a letter to me in the spring, in which I was told that the Government were completely neutral in this matter and that the regulation merely said that if membership of a student union was compulsory, the membership fees were a charge to the local education authority in the case of students who were in receipt of L.E.A. grants. Frankly, that is indulging in semantics.
If, for the sake of argument, it was announced that membership fees to the House of Commons Motor Club were to be a tax-deductible expense, or better still totally recoverable—but that membership of the H.O.C. Motor Club was compulsory—it would not be long before we had a Resolution making membership of the club compulsory. The one must surely follow from the other, and I do not think that my hon. Friend can creditably adopt a posture of neutrality in this matter.
Another anxiety is the fact that in many universities student unions are affiliated to the N.U.S. The hon. Member for Flint, East gave a reasonable and attractive panegyric of the N.U.S. I am not sure that we would all share his view about the qualities of all the leadership of the N.U.S. in recent years, but that is not the point.
The point is that, in cricumstances where, because of the way in which legislation is framed, membership of student unions is made compulsory, and those student unions are affiliated to the N.U.S., membership of the N.U.S. becomes obligatory. The extent of this obligatory enforcement was clearly demonstrated in the case of the group of students at Bradford University, to which my hon. and learned Friend referred.
I understand that they informed the university authorities that they wished to

opt out of membership of the student union and that they were informed that membership of the union was an essential precondition for the completion of a first degree course. In other words, they could not complete the course unless they belonged to the student union. In the circumstances, nothing could be more obligatory than that.
We must bear in mind in the background to this question that it is expected that, over the next three years, the total cost to the ratepayer and taxpayer of the student population will rise to about £360 million. Put crudely, this is a tribute exacted from the vast majority of the population who do not have the benefit of university education for the advantage of the minority who do, a minority who, having received this tribute, will then be in a better position than the majority, presumably, to command higher earning power after leaving university.
There seems to be a fair amount of uncertainty about the precise element in that total constituted by contributions to fees. I agree that, in absolute terms, it is not very great. My hon. and learned Friend gave a figure of £3 million and explained how he had arrived at that. The figure which I have heard is a good deal higher than that, in the region of £8 million. This may be too high. I do not know. I gather that the Department has always argued that it could not say exactly, or, indeed, at all, how much of the total sum this figure was, it being a matter for the local education authorities. None the less, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to shed some light on the matter when he answers the debate.
Whether the total be £3 million, £8 million or something in between, it must at all events be a serious question whether this is really the best way in which the money could be spent on behalf of the ratepayers and taxpayers. In my view, it could be much more usefully spent in, for instance, primary education.
The argument is advanced—it was advanced by the hon. Member for Flint, East—that if membership of student unions became voluntary, or, still more, if the right of a student in receipt of local authority grant to have his union membership fee paid for him were taken away, the unions themselves would be seriously disrupted in their activities, with


the consequences which the hon. Gentleman outlined.
One must look at that argument rather carefully. I accept that in some universities there are what can genuinely be described as essential facilities provided by the student union—restaurant facilities and so on. In my view, these facilities ought to be provided by the universities themselves, as they are in so many cases, and students should not depend on the student union for provision of these essentials. Then, over and above those, there are facilities which, though desirable, are not essential. Many of these, I understand, are good profit-making operations, so I can see no good reason why they should not continue, whether the membership fees are paid or not. As for the rest, if they are sufficiently attractive, it is not unreasonable to suggest that they be financed by the students themselves.
Leaving aside for the moment the question of the desirability or otherwise of these fees being paid by the local education authorities, I turn to the other aspect of the matter which, if anything, concerns me even more, namely, the way in which, through the application of Regulations such as those we are now discussing, an effective closed shop is established in the universities, and. I submit, a closed shop of a particularly pernicious sort, since, quite apart from the situation of those students who for one reason or another object to enforced membership of student unions or, through that, to enforced membership of the N.U.S., there is the position of those students—admittedly, a small minority—who have to finance themselves at university. These people are obliged, out of their own resources or their parents' resources, to pay the fee for membership of the student union in universities at which membership is made compulsory as a result of the application of our legislation.
That situation seems to me to be indefensible. I put it to my hon. Friend that it cannot be defended, above all, by a Government who have themselves put the Industrial Relations Act on the Statute Book. Not even in any closed-shop factory do we have a state of affairs in which three-quarters, or nine-tenths, of the employees have their union mem-

bership fees paid by the taxpayer or the ratepayer while the remainder have to find the fee out of their own pockets, and are obliged to do so. It is an utterly indefensible state of affairs.
Like other hon. Members, I have received several weighty memoranda from the National Union of Students, including a copy of the memorandum which it sent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in August last, and another rather curious document called, "Student Unions—An Attack?", which was published earlier in the year. Both these documents seem to me at least to suggest that, whatever the authors may have gathered at university, it was not a comprehensive knowledge of English grammar.
These documents advance arguments similar to those advanced by the hon. Member for Flint, East. But they do not convince me that any of the objections which have been advanced to a system of voluntary union membership or to the ending of the present system of fees being paid by the local education authority are in any sense valid.
I hope that, as a result of the inquiry in which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is now engaged, it will be decided at the end of the day that payment of student union membership fees by local education authorities should be terminated. If my hon. Friend is not prepared to go as far as that, he really must, I submit, bring to an end the present closed-shop situation. I commend to him one suggestion which is put forward even in this document, "Student Unions—An Attack?". The authors, from the National Union of Students, say:
We could also consider a proposal to allow students to opt out by instructing their L.E.A. not to pay their union fee. Very few students would be likely to resort to this, but it would meet the objections to compulsory membership.
That, and with it complete liberty to opt out for those who have an obligation to finance their own university education, would, I suggest to my hon. Friend, be at least a pis-aller, if he is not prepared to go further; but I hope that he will go substantially further, for the present system must be changed in the interests of equity.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: With the changing of the age of majority, the relationship between students and the university authorities is bound to be materially affected and difficult questions arise. We have heard it said that, at the age of 18, to ask students to have care of money is to put temptation in their way. Yet, at that age, we put temptation in their way in that we ask them to vote.
People go to universities to get a degree. Less than 15 years ago non-attendance at the altar of the college chapel was a sufficient reason to be denied the right to take the examination to obtain a degree. There are still colleges which take no part in the teaching of a student but have the right to prevent his having access to the final examination papers for reasons totally unconnected with his academic activities. There are many universities where the recording of attendance at lectures by lecturers whose lectures are not worth attending is a necessary condition for taking the examinations before a student can obtain a degree.
We should be concerned with that whole area, including membership of the organised student body, the union, which is not a union in any sense like many of the industrial unions. The student union at Durham, Newcastle, or other civic universities is not the same as the N.U.S. Each performs different functions at local, university and national level.
Membership of a college at the University of Durham is very different from membership of a college at Oxford or Cambridge. The whole area of relationships between the degree-giving authority, the financing group—the ratepayer and the taxpayer—the teachers and the students should be thoroughly reviewed. The change in the law, the change in the numbers, the change in the methods of financing, have left certain areas of university control with something like the irresponsibility of the harlot.
The university authorities are too often called upon to act irresponsibly because they are still geared, with their statutes and all the rest, to the father who foots the student's bill being responsible for his discipline and wellbeing, with the university occasionally acting in loco parentis.
That is no longer the position. The local education authorities and the State, the ratepayer and the taxpayer, are footing the bill, and neither the universities nor the colleges have yet achieved a mechanism to relate full adult rights for students as adult citizens with their position as being in statu pupillari.
In these relationships the crucial role will have to be played by student unions. To say that, because a number of them act in a foolish manner, access to finance should be removed from the body as a whole, seems to me not to move in the direction which we all require. We should give greater strength to the elbows of the moderates in the student movements. I suggest that Sussex University students got the union they deserved. If they stayed away and permitted the kind of constitution they had, they got what they deserved, and it is in their hands to correct it. Durham University's quorum is 500, and it is relatively difficult to pack a meeting which has 500 as a quorum.
It is entirely possible for student unions to get the relationship approximately right. The use of senior treasurers and so on with real powers is becoming increasingly common rather than having a figurehead as senior treasurer. Voluntary membership of such unions assumes that the facilities provided are available on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Many of the facilities provided by student unions in civic universities are not available from any other source. There is no duplication, and if students do not buy their coffee in a students' refectory run by the student unions, they cannot get it.
It may be that the solution is for the U.G.C. to finance coffee bars. I am not certain that that will necessarily achieve greater public accountability than we have now. I find from the Report of the recent Select Committee that there are areas in the financing authorities which leave great gaps in accountability, that there is concern, and that where there is a monopolistic supply of services to give students the right to opt out may not be realistic. The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) was right to suggest that it might be necessary to alter the forms of services and facilities before student union membership could be made voluntary.
The idea that the £360 million is extracted for a minority élite, and that membership of a union is something like membership of the House of Commons motor club, is totally fraudulent and one with which the House should waste no time.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: I shall not detain the House for very long, because I wish to confine myself to only one point.
I should not like it to be thought, because my name appears on the Motion, that I would go anything like as far as my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). I see the theoretical thread of the argument about the closed shop, about compulsory membership, and about the connection between public financing and union subscriptions, but I should take a lot of convincing, without a great deal more argument, that it would be right substantially to change that at present.
I confine myself to the issue of the Select Committee's 1969 recommendation about the setting up of a registrar or other form of public body to approve the constitutions, accounts and conduct of student unions and similar bodies. It seemed to me that the speeches of the hon. Members for Flint. East (Mr. Barry Jones) and Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) contained nothing which could be taken as opposing that.
I come to some of the things my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus said. If the hon. Member for Flint, East meant what my hon. Friend thought when he talked about the possibility of breaking up student unions, or even more divisive action, with hasty and ill-considered measures, I can understand what my hon. Friend said. But everything the hon. Gentleman said about the admirable work which most student unions do, and about the essential nature of most of the functions they perform, makes it all the more essential that those functions should not be prejudiced by the deflection of money to purposes for which the subscriptions were not intended.
Everything the two hon. Members opposite said about the nature of, and need for, student unions makes it all the more important that they should be

properly controlled in essence, by which I do not mean, nor does anyone else on this side of the House, that there should be any attempt by Government or any body to try to put the democratic control of the union into any kind of stranglehold. We are trying to see that democracy works properly and that certain elementary safeguards are imposed.
When the hon. Member for Flint, East talks of hasty and ill-considered action, I cannot think that action taken on the recommendation of a Select Committee in 1969 could be considered hasty or ill-considered if we came to a decision about it now. It is a sad reflection on Governments of both parties that no action has been taken on it yet. It cannot be suggested. for example, that the Registrar of Friendly Societies has exercised a baleful influence on the friendly society movement or has caused division amongst the ranks of those who have benefited from friendly societies.
I should add that I have had two children at universities and another is going on to one. Those who have been there have been interested in this question but they and their friends and every other moderate student I have talked to have said that it is impossible for them, the moderate majority, to cope with the kind of thing which often goes on.
I agree with the hon. Member for Durham that university students get the unions they deserve—they do. The moderate majority is prepared once or twice a year perhaps to go to a meeting and elect moderate and often completely non-political student union officers in the hope that they will run the thing properly for them for the rest of the year. But the ordinary student, who has gone to university partly to work hard to get a degree and partly—let us face it—possibly to enjoy himself, cannot make a full-time job of student union politics and go to the requisitioned special meetings once a week, which is what the militant minority continually manages to achieve in order to get its minority views adopted. The number of moderate and non-political presidents of student unions who have resigned their posts before the end of their year of office because of the pressure of minority groups, who have sought to mandate them on issues without the agreement of the majority of the students, has become alarmingly great.
With regard to the use of student money and the way in which student business is conducted, it is a necessity, when dealing with large sums of public money, as well as in the interests of the students and their unions, that there should be at least a registrar who will agree a model constitution, the question of quorums for meetings and the proper uses to which subscription money can be put. I do not believe that anyone can say that there is any sinister motive behind this or that it can hamper the proper development of student unions or the functions they perform.
It is high time that we did this. The situation has grown up gradually over the years into very big business and very big money. It was reasonable at first that there should not be a registrar or any proper form of control, but we have let things go too far. The dangers have become abundantly obvious and it is more than time we acted. I hope that my lion Friend will give an answer on this.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I find myself in almost entire agreement with the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). I do not think that there is any basic conflict between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones). But I think the danger in other speeches from hon. Members opposite lies in the fact that some of them would like to take a very large sledgehammer in order to crack a small nut. To try to carry this to the argument that membership of student unions should be completely voluntary raises all the difficulties that my hon. Friends the Member for Flint, East and Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) put.
Many of the functions of the student unions are not provided elsewhere. I suspect that, if we took the view that the U.G.C. should finance certain facilities, if there were no alternative facilities, quite a large amount of the money mentioned as being contributions would be spent on building coffee bars and the rest, which are now provided by the student unions. There would be little saving of the taxpayer's money there. We have to stop the lunatic fringe element, and as one of the Members for Southampton I unreservedly condemn the action of the University of Southampton

Students Union in its political discrimination and the way in which it has distributed funds.
I believe that political organisations inside universities should not get any funds from the student unions at all. They should by all means have the free use of accommodation for their meetings but it is quite wrong that the Conservative Society or the Labour Society or any other political society should obtain money. At the University of Southampton, I was Chairman of the Labour Society. We got no grant from the students union. If we wanted to raise money for our functions, we went out and did it ourselves—and it did us a lot of good to do so. If we wanted to get speakers down, we had to raise the money ourselves rather than ask the students union.
I back wholeheartedly the request of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to take account of the recommendation of the Select Committee, of which I was a member, for some form of registrar to look at student union constitutions. If we could get a properly balanced constitution, then many of these abuses—and they are only in a minority of cases—could be stopped. If one made membership voluntary, so that only those participated who wanted to do so, one might well find an even greater danger of a lunatic fringe taking control of a student union because they would be sufficiently politically dedicated to be prepared to pay £10 subscription or whatever it might be. I would not reject entirely the argument if it were thought useful for a student to contract out in the sense that he might write to his local authority and say, "In my case I do not think you need pay the fee". I see no objection to that and I do not think that the National Union of Students has any strong objection to it or to any individual financing the fee himself. It would not be a disaster.
I plead with the Government not to abolish completely the £15 or whatever fee it is that the local authority pays and not to make membership entirely voluntary. If they do, they will destroy the whole concept of what student unions have done. A university without a student union—I am talking about the main work of a union—would be very much the poorer.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I do not think that there is any dispute on this side of the House about the fact that student unions carry out valuable functions. I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) has said about that. Clearly, student unions are a valuable part of university and college life. I would not disagree either with what has been said about British students. One only has to compare student methods here with some of the student methods overseas to recognise that British student politics and British student political leaders are moderate and responsible, and I think that we are fortunate in that.
But it is not enough to say that because some changes may be proposed and some changes may be under discussion which may cause controversy in student circles, therefore we should let well alone. That is not a sufficient reply to the case, because the logic would be that we in this House would not be discussing or acting upon any of the things we do discuss and act upon. I do not believe that one is opposing either students or student unions by questioning the methods by which the student unions are financed or the element of compulsion in the membership. That was the point which my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) was making.
To me, the present system is questionable on two grounds. First, it seems to me wrong in principle that students should be compelled to join a student union. In many cases they may want to but this is surely a matter for free will, a matter which is essentially up to the individual. Although it is true that most students are financed by the local authorities, a minority are self-financing in that they are financed by their parents.
It seems objectionable in principle that these students should be forced to join student unions. At this stage in the student's career his options should be left open, and I cannot see any good reason why there should be a real compulsion in these cases.
I would favour what has already been proposed from this side of the House, making membership of the student unions voluntary. If the facilities are wanted—

and the facilities provided are, I recognise, recreationally, socially and culturally good, making a tremendous contribution—they will continue to be provided on a voluntary basis. This only reinforces the case for making membership voluntary. It is only another way of saying that these facilities will be used by the many because they are so good, but it still allows the few who do not want to use them the option of doing just that.
The other aspect which is important, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus, is that the bulk of the money comes from public sources, from the rates. That means that it is reasonable for the public to have and to show a close interest in how this money is spent. I find myself in agreement with all that has been said about public accountability in this respect. From the public's point of view it is reasonable for the public to say, "Very well, these facilities are good, they are, in many cases, excellent. But if that is so, the students will want to take advantage of them voluntarily and as a matter of choice." Surely it is up to the students, the public may say, to take the decision to join the student unions of their own accord and pay their own money for the advantages of so doing. I cannot see why the public should automatically pay.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is there not a danger here that the student who comes from a better-off family, who has some money, will be able to pay and enjoy the facilities while the chap dependent on his grant may find himself in difficulty?

Mr. Fowler: That is a difficult point for me to answer in a comprehensive way. There could be difficulties of this kind, but I should have thought that in the vast majority of cases that would not be the case. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus said, there is a choice of financial priorities in education as in any other area, and it seems to me not too difficult to think of alternative ways in which this money, be it £3 million or £8 million, could be spent in education.
My hon. Friend mentioned the question of primary schools. Many of us would support what he said. If I could


bring a constituency point into this, as the Minister is here, I would mention the need to bring together and unite in one building the comprehensive schools formed in this country. I would draw attention to those like the one in my constituency, which have buildings more than a mile apart. I do not think it would be particularly difficult for any of us to think of other ways of spending this money on education. I am not convinced that this is the best possible way of spending it. The situation is unsatisfactory although not disgraceful. From the point of view of both students and the public the Government should take action to correct it.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: I congratulate hon. Gentlemen opposite who had the foresight to table this Motion today. I congratulate them on putting it down at all, because there is much apprehension in colleges and universities throughout the country. The Government have been considering this for some time, but I do not expect the Minister to be able to say very much today. He threw out three proposals at Bradford on 15th September and we might expect to hear the trend of his thinking on those proposals today. I know that he has promised to consult all the bodies concerned including the students, and he will recollect that in reply to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) his right hon. Friend promised us on 5th August that, if possible, she would proceed in agreement with all the bodies concerned in this matter.
There were two inquiries in 1970, one conducted by the Committee of Chancellors and Principals, in the universities, the other by the D.E.S. in the public sector of higher education. It seems to me that the pressure is based on a few highly publicised but untypical incidents—out of 700 student unions. The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) quoted a number of cases and I felt that he was scraping the bottom of the barrel. He quoted £100 being contributed to the dustmen's strike from the union at Essex. This kind of thing is surely a small price to pay for democracy in our student body.
Democracy does silly things. No doubt the Services Committee has considered some of the quite outrageous things done to the Palace of Westminster during the Recess. I regard these as highly silly things, but they have been done in accordance with our democratic machinery. I believe it wasted not £100, as with the dustmen's strike—although it surprises me that the dustmen have not gone on strike bearing in mind the mess they have to clear up here—but a great many hundreds of thousands of pounds on quite unnecessary changes.
It is important that this element of our young people should have the opportunity to train themselves in democracy. Like any other kind of training, training in democracy involves trial and error.
The hon. and learned Member spoke of students subscribing to provide milk for primary schools—

Mr. Ronald Bell: I was not criticising students who subscribed to provide milk for the primary schools, whether or not I agree with them. The point I made was that they had voted public money to that purpose, that money having been contributed by the public for other purposes.

Mr. Short: I will come to the question of compulsory membership shortly. I was also attracted to the students who provided a contribution to U.C.S. If these are the best examples the hon. and learned Gentleman can invoke, what an inadequate basis they are for the remedy he proposes! The right hon. Lady in that parliamentary reply to which I referred said:
…the misuse is comparatively small…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th August, 1971; Vol. 822 c. 1820.]
I agree with her. There are two categories of objection. There are, first of all, those who challenge the two bases of student union organisation, compulsory membership and State financing. There are those who accept those bases but want greater external control of student union activities, financing and structure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) spoke of the three functions of a student union, and they are worth mentioning. The union promotes almost all social activities in colleges and universities, some of the


recreational and catering facilities. Secondly, it sponsors, through its grants, a wide range of cultural and supporting activities without, in the majority of cases, any kind of discrimination. Thirdly, it represents students externally as well as internally in the universities or colleges.
All these functions are essential. Social, catering and recreational facilities are particularly important nowadays when two-thirds of students in provincial universities live in lodgings. For some years I have closely watched the lodging situation in Newcastle. I know that the Under Secretary has met a number of people from Newcastle and knows the problems. The old areas where students found their lodgings are being demolished and students must now go further afield to find their lodgings. It is now common for students at provincial universities to live in lodgings 10, 15 or 20 miles away and to travel in by bus daily. If the union were not there to provide social facilities, life would be pretty miserable for such students.
These functions are particularly important because they make student bodies into communities. I hope that it is common ground that we want to retain the community concept in universities.
I do not think that the provision of these facilities and the compulsory contributing to them by all students is any more unwarranted compulsion than a local authority providing services such as libraries, parks and museums, which people are free to use or not but for which all must pay, or indeed of all students having to pay as part of their fees for the university library which they may use or they may not, as they wish.
Another question raised by a number of hon. Members opposite is whether these facilities should not be provided by the universities and colleges themselves. I ask hon. Members who have suggested this how they would pay for them. If the university provided recreational, catering and sporting facilities, how would they be financed? They would be financed by an addition to the fee or, alternatively, by a bigger grant from the U.G.C. If they were financed from the fee, all students would have to pay. If they were financed from the U.G.C., all taxpayers would have to pay the cost.
Is it seriously suggested that any university court of senate, or whatever it is—it varies from one to the other—would run the social and recreational facilities for the large student body of 5,000 or 6,000 students in the modern provincial university? In the end, every university would have to hand it back to the students and we should be back again at square one.
Much has been said—this question was first raised by the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South—about the Southampton case, which is, perhaps, the most highly publicised of all. In April, 1971, the N.U.S., at its annual conference, deplored this. I deplored it from this Box and said that I thought that it should be reversed immediately. In the event, it has been reversed. I should have thought that this is a much better way of doing it than by legislation.
Student unions have a representative function also. I got the Clerk to the Privy Council to write a letter on 5th June, 1970, in which I insisted that universities should ensure that student members on university governing bodies were properly representative of the student body as a whole. I think all would agree with that. It is difficult to see how it could be achieved unless the union had 100 per cent. membership.
It is highly desirable that the corporate view of students should be put. I do not think that the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary could function without having the corporate view of all students made available to them on many occasions. I know that students are consulted frequently in the Department of Education and Science.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The right hon. Gentleman has just advanced a curious proposition. He has said that it would not be possible for a corporate view to be advanced unless membership of the union remained compulsory. The right hon. Gentleman must know that in the case of the majority of universities, as the Select Committee discovered two years ago, the elections to the S.R.C.s, and so on, are participated in by a derisory proportion of the total student body. Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the fact that membership is compulsory in this way ensures that these


people are empowered to speak with full authority for the entire union?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman wishes to make the participation even more derisory by having heard only the voices of those who can afford to pay the subscription; because many people would not be able to afford to pay the subscription if membership were voluntary. With voluntary membership the student community would be destroyed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East said, we should end up with very much more militant bodies.
Hon. Members will know what has happened in universities in France, Germany and Italy. I do not think that anybody here would wish that to happen in Britain. I believe that the major cause of the troubles on the Continent has been the impaired communication between student bodies and the authorities.
In Britain we have been remarkably fortunate. We may not think that we have on occasion, especially those who have been surrounded by howling bodies of students. However, over the past few years we have been remarkably fortunate. I believe that a major cause of this has been the fact that there has been a student body which was able to speak to the authorities, to hold a continual dialogue with the authorities, and to speak for all students.
The Select Committee proposed a registrar of unions, for two reasons. The Select Committee said, first, that with compulsory membership there must be some mechanism to protect the interests of individual members. It said, second, that as public expenditure is involved safeguards must exist to ensure that student unions are properly run. I want to ask the Under Secretary, if he cares to enter this field, about the legal basis for a registrar of student unions. As I understand it, the student union is part of the mechanism in the university. The university is an autonomous body established by Royal Charter. The Royal Charter can be amended only by another Royal Charter. An amendment can be made only on a petition of the people who possess the Charter. Therefore, I think that the legal side of this would be difficult. However, that is not the point I want to make.
I believe that the constitutions of the unions give protection to the individual. A point which has not been mentioned today is that the constitutions must be approved by the governing body of the university or college and they can be amended only with the approval of the governing body of the university or college. This is a considerable safeguard. If there are defects in the constitutions of the unions, the universities themselves must bear the blame. In every case the individual has the right of appeal to the general body of the union or to the courts. So there are real protections for individuals in student unions.
As to the accounts, I have checked on this today and I find that almost all, but not quite all, are audited by professional firms of accountants. The National Union of Students has strongly recommended all student unions that this should be done. I agree at once that this is not public accountability, but it ensures that any defects in accounting are brought to light. It has been agreed by hon. Members opposite that on the whole the accounting is done satisfactorily.
The N.U.S. is prepared, as I think that the Under-Secretary knows, to discuss with the Department or with the vice-chancellors and principals alternative methods of finance provided that they do not affect the character or operation of the unions. What the National Union is not prepared to discuss is a method of finance which would amount in effect to external political control of the unions. Short of that, there is a preparedness to enter into discussions with the Department about alternative methods of finance.
I implore the Government not to start legislating in this extremely sensitive field without agreement between the students, the colleges and universities, and the Department. I believe that there is much common ground among them. I appeal to the Government not to be pushed into hasty changes by a small number of isolated cases which we all deplore and condemn.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: I would start by saying that I am in agreement with the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) that the student union is


absolutely vital in its rôle in strengthening the community of the university. It is very difficult these days for large bodies of students scattered in their residences to have a sense of community, and in so far as the student union contributes to that sense of community I welcome it.
Let me in passing welcome these consolidated Regulations—consolidated. I suspect, so that they could come into force on 1st September and be available and intelligible to the students; and perhaps that is more important than whether we should be discussing them by means of a Prayer or by this Motion today.
I welcome the other changes which have been made, particularly with regard to the lifting of the parental threshold, and some of the other improvements in the parental scales.
Turning to this question of the student unions, I should like to acknowledge the copy of the National Union of Students' memorandum to the Secretary of State—the copy circulated to us. I thought it a very fair and objective statement, although I do not necessarily agree with everything in it. I do agree, however, that it is highly desirable to lessen the gross disparity, in many cases, between university and non-university student facilities. It is, I think, a little worrying—not that it is a measure of the disparity—that we should have a difference of £11 on one side and £3 on the other. I hope that that point would be looked at very carefully.
I entirely accept the students' view that they have very important functions in respect of catering. I think the students are far better at deciding what forms of modern and inexpensive and easily accessible catering there should be than probably any more senior body, and, indeed, on student housing, I think they know better what they want than some remote and elderly committees. Quite clearly, too, they must sponsor the sporting activities of the university or college as the case may be.
It is in their third capacity, of acting as a representative body, that I share some of the anxieties, but not such extreme anxieties, which my hon. Friends have mentioned. There are only a few cases, admittedly, but I do think that

sometimes the actions of the students union may not seem to the local community to be representative of the whole body of students, and I think this is a pity. We have had described to us the way in which a small militant group can get to work and operate a constitution which lacks sufficient safeguards. Likewise, where there may not be effective accounting arrangements, such as—as the righ hon. Gentleman says—in the vast majority of cases there are, we can get unfortunate incidents which have an effect wholly out of relation either to their number or their real significance. It was news to me that the college of which I am still a member made this grant in respect of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. Unless it was a down payment for a new college barge, I do not think it should have come out of the union fees fund. What I hope is that there was a quite separate voluntary fund, from which it was decided that such a gift should be made.

Mr. Maude: I think my hon. Friend should, perhaps, explain this a little more carefully. He does not mean the fund taken out of the union's subscriptions. He means a fund raised by voluntary subscription.

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, for I would not want the House to misunderstand me. What I meant was that where the students want money for a substantial charitable contribution, whether or not it is of some political significance, it should come not from the body of their subscriptions but from whatever means they choose voluntarily to get up a fund.
This has happened all through the ages. I can remember a college in need of funds having a day for the college blind. It is true that the appeal was far less closely connected with any disability than some of the donors expected, but the money was raised voluntarily, and this is the essence of the point.

Mr. John Mendelson: On this point, why should a student union have such different provisions from other organisations and not make a contribution for charitable purposes in the same way as other organisations make contributions from their subscriptions for charitable purposes, as, for instance, on an occasion


when there is some accident and some people cannot make a living for a number of weeks? Would the hon. Member preclude students from making out of their subscriptions a reasonable contribution to such people? Why should they not?

Mr. Hill: I think that if the hon. Member had been here all the time he would have realised that we are discussing the use of the subscriptions which are specifically made by local authorities for union dues. It is on that rather narrow front that we are talking. I think that in general principle my answer would perhaps be this, that if they do make any gifts or donations from the union fees fund it should mean either that they deny themselves something else which the fees were intended to provide or else that the fees are, perhaps, rather more generous than, strictly speaking, they need be for the purposes intended.

Mr. Edward Short: Is the hon. Member aware that individual directors with perhaps only a small shareholding in a company do not hesitate to suggest that the company should make large donations to the Conservative Party and without consulting their shareholders?

Mr. Hill: I do not think that that has any relevance. Those donations come out of profits which the enterprise has made, not out of taxpayers' money, and if the shareholders do not like it they can complain.

Mr. Edward Short: The shareholders cannot complain. The money belongs to the shareholders but they have no say in the matter at all.

Mr. Hill: I do not want to engage in a private debate with the right hon. Gentleman. I am delighted if firms give subscriptions to political parties, whether the Conservative Party or not, in the hope that political parties will have more resources with which to increase research and the quality of British politics. However, may I go back—

Mr. John Mendelson: Yes, the hon. Member had better hurry on to something else.

Mr. Hill: What I was wondering was whether it would be possible so to conceive of this third function of the student union, which is the representative one, as to distinguish the activities of the student

union in all fields of administration—the non-political and non-ideological, the social and catering, amenity and residential sides of their work—from debating and political activities, in the same way as the annual conference of the National Union of Students, until a few years ago limited its agenda to educational subjects. For those of us who are specially interested in education those conferences were perhaps more interesting than discussions of a wide general political range.
The non-political, non-ideological and non-debating functions of student unions might be separated, and membership of student unions with those functions might be compulsory, whereas the political activities of student unions in the sense of a debating force, might have a voluntary membership. There would be a degree of difficulty in demarcation and in deciding whether a subject should be on the agenda of one body or the other, but this is a possibility which is worth looking at. The reason why some students do not want to join a union is that they are deterred by particular opinions, often those of a minority in the total body of students, with which they do not wish to be associated. Such a separation might be useful, and I hope that the Under-Secretary in his further researches will consider it.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: I listened carefully to the so-called debate on education at the Conservative Party annual conference, and that is why I intervene in this debate. I know the ideological inspiration of the point of view put forward by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill). I listened to the television recording of the conference debate from beginning to end, and there has probably never been a more disgusting performance than the anti-education bias of Conservative representatives in showing their distrust of students and this student generation. They did not use the tones of moderation of the Under-Secretary of State, who normally made a point of working very closely with the N.U.S. when he was in opposition, and I have no reason to think that he has not continued to do so now that he is in office. I make no charge of inconsistency, but he does not represent his party. He would not have been able to get up and say a word of praise


of the student movement at that conference without being blown away by a gale of opposition, resentment and bias.
It is no good the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) shaking his head. He as little represented the opinion of the students of Cambridge on the Greek colonels' régime than the Under-Secretary would have represented his party had he admitted to a certain amount of respect for the student generation.

Mr. David Lane: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the Greek case. I, together with hon. Members from both sides of the House, happen to be a member of the Atlantic Committee for Democracy in Greece.

Mr. Mendelson: Yes indeed, and the hon. Gentleman's hypocrisy is made even more glaring when one reads the speech to which he treated this House on that occasion. He had a duty to speak for the academic community of Cambridge when this matter was debated here, but he completely failed to represent their profound convictions and deeply held views. I was in Cambridge on two occasions. I lectured at one college and spoke to a body of students. I talked to large numbers of members of the Faculty and to many students, and the hon. Gentleman completely misrepresented the profoundly held convictions of the Faculty and the student body on this matter.
We are not discussing here a narrow matter but one of considerable constitutional importance. Many speakers who showed both distrust and ignorance of academic and student life at the Conservative Party annual conference continually demanded of the Secretary of State—who was sitting on the platform and rightly ignored them in her reply—that she should introduce an industrial code of conduct for university unions. Time and again these references were made, the implication being that the Government had just done this against the trade union movement so they must now do it against the student unions as well. It is against this background that this debate must take place.
The National Union of Students in this country has built up a democratic organisation which to my certain knowledge—and I speak as a former Treasurer of the

International Union of Students and a representative of the N.U.S. on that body—is more democratic than any other student organisation. One reason why our N.U.S. has been able to maintain that high tradition is that it has been free from interference by the State, and the Under-Secretary knows that very well.
In many other countries, to my regret and the regret of the N.U.S., student bodies have been continually dictated to and interfered with by State authorities. In the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and other countries that call themselves progressive, functionaries have been appointed to the student bodies, thereby making any independent life of these organisations completely impossible. In the United States, the Central Intelligence Agency, on the instruction of the American Government, sent a number of under-cover agents into American student organisations, thereby making any independent student movement in the United States impossible, and discrediting on the campuses for a long time to come any student organisation. We have been, and are today, free from that kind of interference, and I warn the hon. Gentleman that if he were to yield to the invitations pressed upon him at the Conservative Party Conference he would be doing a grave disservice to the student community and to our academic life.
My second point concerns the internal arrangements of these organisations and the hypocritical speech to which we have been treated by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South. The hon. Gentleman hurried away from my right hon. Friend's question because he had no answer. Of course he wants shareholders not to be consulted when the people who represent and run big firms make financial contributions to the Conservative Party.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: The argument is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. Any subscriptions for political or other purposes have to be disclosed by companies. In making his great attack, will he bear in mind that he was not here during the early part of the debate, and what some of my hon. Friends have been asking is that the Under-Secretary should consider the recommendations of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Education.

Mr. Mendelson: I am strictly confining myself to the hon. Gentleman's speech, which I heard. I have made no


reference to anyone else's speech. I have referred to what the hon. Gentleman said within my hearing, and he continued the biased approach to student bodies that was rehearsed at the Conservative conference.

Sir Frederic Bennett: It is not just a matter of the contributions being declared to shareholders. The shareholders, since the amendment of the Companies Act by the Labour Government, have a perfect right to take objection to these subscriptions when they are made if they wish to do so. Can the hon. Gentleman suggest a similar manner in which ratepayers and taxpayers can object to the use made of their money?

Mr. Mendelson: In my part of the country often the first time a small shareholder hears about these contributions is long after they have been made. That is a fact of life, and I know the hon. Gentleman has always been able to agree with me on facts, although we may have strong differences of opinion on policy.
It would be possible to have a different arrangement for the financing of student unions, but it has been found convenient to do it in this practical way. There are certain facilities for which the student bodies should be responsible and, therefore, it has been held that a part of the money which would be contributed towards the general conduct of business should reach them in this particular way. Not only is it useful for students in student unions to have decent canteens, dances, "hops ", and what have you, but the underlying doctrine is—and has been for many years—that it is also very useful and desirable for them to take part in the great philosophical discussions throughout the country.
It is wrong for any hon. Member to suggest that somehow their activities concerning the political or philosophical matters or deeply-held convictions about current events are in some way separated and different from other activities. They are an integral part of the general activities of the student unions. It would be a sorry day if the House of Commons were to say, "We make a distinction between the general functions and duties in this respect." Let us remember that students represent the next generation. They represent the people who have to

start to do the thinking for the future. It would be a most backward, reactionary step—and I never thought that I would hear it in this House—to suggest that these functions are somehow extraneous to their other functions and duties.
This was indeed a dangerous element to smuggle into a debate at the Conservative Party annual conference. Some of the representatives at that conference seemed to me to display a general bias against long-haired students. One had only to listen to those debates on radio or watch them on television to hear the tremendous applause that went up when a delegate referred to the general attitude of students One would think that they were the enemy when, in fact, many of the delegates have sons and daughters who are students.
People carefully played upon this bias and tried to confuse it with certain isolated activities which were rightly reported in the newspapers. When a Member of this House or any other member of the public has been properly invited to address a university audience and is then treated with bad conduct by another body of students who do not wish him to be heard, of course there will be general condemnation of such conduct. Of course, those of us who care about academic freedom and the freedom of discussion will immediately condemn such action and will urge action against those responsible by the university authorities and by vice-chancellors, as I myself have done in the past and will do again if such misconduct occurs. This is one matter on which there is common ground. But what some of the representatives at the Conservative Party conference did was to try to confuse this by seeking to create a general atmosphere of bias and resentment against students who hold progressive opinions.
The Under-Secretary of State well knows, as does his Secretary of State, that for every student who engages in such misconduct there are 100 students who would never take part in any such demonstration against a speaker who holds a different view—but those students may well hold progressive opinions about political matters like the Colonels' regime in Greece or the war in Vietnam. We must stand firm against the confusion on these two matters.
After all, it was the students, first in the United States on the campuses and then in this country, who were the first to demonstrate against the war in Vietnam. They knew that the United States' aims in Vietnam could be implemented only by the physical destruction of hundreds and thousands of Vietnamese. They did not have to wait for the horrors of My Lai. In saying these things, they were ahead of events, ahead of my own Government and ahead of the Opposition Front Bench, as it then was. I wish to express my profound respect for their farsightedness. They acted properly, as did the student demonstrators in the French revolution.
There will not be many hon. Members who hold the views of Lord Eldon—and it was Lord Eldon's views which were urged against students at the Conservative Party annual conference. I would ask the Government—many of whom when in opposition did not have a bad record in keeping contact with the student movement and who earned the respect of a good many of us in listening to the reasoned case of the National Union of Students—not to open the door to the introduction of a code of industrial conduct which would be the perhaps not-so-thin end of the wedge for State interference in the life of the university unions. I ask them to stand firm against any attempt by their own back benchers to move in that dangerous direction.
It is much better that free university associations, free university unions and independent student associations should have some among their members who err at times and of whose acts we disapprove than that the whole of the student body should be put in a straitjacket. I urge the Minister to reject any such suggestion as was urged upon him at his own Conservative Party conference.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. David Lane: I hope the next time the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) wishes to intervene in an education debate, he will have the courtesy to sit through the earlier part of the debate so that he knows what other speakers were trying to deal with. We are not discussing the Conservative Party conference. We are discussing a Motion on a narrower subject.
I should like to correct what he said about the Garden House Hotel affair at Cambridge. When I condemned violence at the Garden House Hotel, I am certain that I was expressing the views of the vast majority of my constituents and a considerable section of academic opinion in Cambridge among both senior and junior members. I was heavily involved at the time and I hope that my recollection of this affair will carry some weight even with the hon. Member for Penistone.
To get back to the main subject of the debate, the Government are committed to further expenditure on higher education. I strongly support this, and we all await with interest the unfolding of Government policy during the year ahead. I believe that the majority of the public support this aim, but on both sides of the House we are aware of public concern about certain aspects of higher education today and we must do all we can to allay it.
One of the causes of concern we are debating this afternoon, and I shall return to it in a moment. To digress to another cause of disquiet, I refer to the important principle of freedom of speech in the universities—perhaps the one thing to which I responded in the remarks by the hon. Member for Penistone. A number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have had monstrous experiences in trying to address meetings at universities. I repeat today what I said at a student conference in Cambridge at the weekend. The universities, above all, have traditionally been places of free speech and tolerance, and it is vital that they should so continue, with a fair hearing being given to people who want to speak and who are invited to speak on any subject, and from whatever political point of view, provided they keep within the law. Every occasion on which a speaker is shouted down at a university is a self-inflicted wound on the reputation of students and universities and tends to prejudice public support for the expansion of higher education which we want to see.
Returning to our main subject today, large sums of public money are involved in the running of student unions and there is a need for further public reassurance. I am glad that this debate has drawn attention to the problem, but it is also important that we should keep


it in perspective. I should like, in passing, to appeal to Press and television which I believe have been responsible for a great deal of distortion of affairs, and the public understanding of affairs, in our universities in the last few years.
There have been deplorable cases of abuse and of political discrimination. I do not believe there is much difference between the two sides of the House on this matter. Examples have been given of financial contributions to causes which may well be ultra vires the student unions. One moral is that we would all like to see moderate students taking a greater and more active part in the deliberations and decisions of student unions. But, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-upon-Avon (Mr. Maude), we know the difficulties experienced by moderate students who are at the university for other purposes and cannot always spare time to take part in these activities.
Fortunately, those cases have been few, and, against those few cases, one has to set the social, recreational and general amenities which student unions provide month by month. The main stream of the student union activities is wholly admirable and serves non-controversial purposes. They are activities which add greatly to the quality of university life. On the whole, they are well administered, and they offer considerable scope for responsibility and involvement to a fair number of students.
A few months ago, I was at Newcastle University. I was greatly impressed by what the union was doing there in the main stream of its work. Only last weekend, I met the daughter of a friend of mine who has gone up as a freshman—or "freshwoman"—to the University of East Anglia. She is living in rooms three or four miles away from the centre, and already she has appreciated the value of the everyday facilities which she gets from her student union.
I shall not go into further detail today. We have had a fairly lengthy discussion. I make just two points of constructive suggestion. The first is that there is need for some kind of more searching independent scrutiny not necessarily by a Registrar of Student Unions, as the Select Committee proposed, but something over and above what we have today. Secondly,

as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) suggested, it would be helpful to analyse carefully the different functions at present performed by student unions, and possibly to differentiate in our future approach between the main stream of these activities and the peripheral ones.
I do not argue for the continuation of the status quo. However, in making proposals for changes, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not take a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Let us introduce further safeguards which are shown to be necessary, but let us not undermine or hamper the valuable work at present done by student unions in so many of our universities and other institutions.

6.24 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Until the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) intervened in the debate, it had not been my intention to say even a few words, for the very reason about which the hon. Gentleman was given a reproof. I, too, was not present during the earlier part of the debate. The reason for my absence was that I was imparting to some very Conservative students the view that I am about to advance. This is no new interest of mine, since I have exchanged with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary a controversial and sometimes acrimonious correspondence recently on the same subject.
I wish to pursue the point raised by the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) and supported by the hon. Member for Penistone about subscriptions, because, although it is a comparatively small matter, it is important to get the facts on the record. Following amending legislation introduced by the previous Administration, subscriptions to any source, charitable or otherwise, which are not directly connected with the business carried on by the subscriber have to be shown and subjected in due course to criticism by shareholders. It is true that, by then, the subscription will have been made. However, directors do not like being challenged on such matters at shareholders' meetings, and in fact the possibility of such a challenge has an undoubted deterrent effect. I know of no similar occasion when the unfortunate


rate payers or tax payers are in a position to object, even a year later. Their only opportunity is through their Members of Parliament in a debate in this House, which is not quite the same.
The hon. Member for Penistone also referred to the Brighton conference. I do not know in what capacity he was there. However, I was there through the whole conference, and it would be a grave distortion for anyone to suggest that the whole education debate was used by a lot of elderly reactionaries to give hell to the students. Roughly 80 per cent. of the time was taken up by experienced educationists of all generations trying to obtain better conditions for the under-privileged to get improved education facilities. The other topic which has been mentioned was a small part of the proceedings. Some people thought that it was too small a part. When objections were raised to the present system of student grants, most of the speakers were members of the younger generation, students themselves. It was they who objected to what was going on. It is quite untrue to suggest that the objections came from elderly reactionaries.

Mr. John Mendelson: I have no wish to prolong this debate unnecessarily, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I listened to the conference debate from beginning to end.

Sir F. Bennett: Then clearly the hon. Gentleman was in a more privileged part of the hall than I was entitled to occupy. That shows some hope for the future course of the hon. Gentleman's political allegiance.
I feel very strongly and perhaps even more fundamentally than others of my hon. Friends who have spoken that we need to draw a distinction between not interfering with the functions of student unions and not subsidising political activities. It has been a long-standing convention in this country that the State does not subsidise the political activities of any element of our population. From the point of view of objective logic, I have never been able to see why the very small proportion of our young people who are fortunate enough to go to universities should enjoy a facility which no other section of the community enjoys.
I have argued with the Minister and I am arguing now that there is no reason why one very small section of the community, whether it be right, left or anything else, should enjoy a subsidy from the State to carry out its political activities. I do not want to see any interference with student unions. I simply say that a division should be drawn between the normal activities of a student union and its political activities. If it wants to engage in political activities, its members should find their own money, just as anyone else has to. The principle should be applied especially to subventions and contributions made to various causes, be they anti-Communist or pro-Communist causes.
These are matters which arouse a great deal of unease among the public. It is difficult to understand why tax payers or rate payers, even indirectly, should have to subsidise political activities of which they personally do not approve.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman, but how does he square that with the vast sums which were spent on Common Market propaganda during the summer?

Sir F. Bennett: I do not dodge the issue, but I should be extending the debate unduly if I were to deal with that episode. I could express views on the expenditure of that money which the hon. Gentleman might not find unsatisfactory, but tonight is not the occasion.
In my few remarks, I have tried to indicate where the difference lies. The public is not worried so much about student unions as such. What worries the public is why, at a time of high taxation and high rates, the political activities of a very small section of our community should be subsidised by the State.

6.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): I am sure that the whole House feels indebted to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and others of our hon. Friends who placed the Motion on the Order Paper. This has been a valuable occasion. I shall do my best to pick up all the points which have been made and to deal with them as fully as possible.
It has probably come as a surprise that the debate has taken place at this hour. We are accustomed to taking a prayer late at night. I expect that it is even better for us in the middle of the day, after an agreeable lunch. I am glad 12 right hon. and hon. Members have been able to contribute to the discussion.
I hope that the House will agree that two threads have come out of the debate. The first is that all right hon. and hon. Members, whatever view they have gone on to express, have at some point in their speeches said that they believe that student unions are "a good thing", because a centre of activity and expression inside a college or university is valuable and in this direction they perform many valuable functions. All right hon. and hon. Members, whether critical or not, have sought to make it clear that they were not taking part in a student-bashing operation.
The second thread is that, with two exceptions only—the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson)—all hon. Members considered that some change was necessary. The House will understand my difficulty when I ask it to reflect on the range of change which has been pressed upon me today; but, with two exceptions, I think that I have the agreement of the House that the present state of affairs is not good enough and that some change is necessary.
I must, in all honesty and friendliness, tell the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central that I did not find persuasive his analogy with the facilities provided by a local authority; for example, that a local park is provided for people whether they enjoy that local park or not. After all, the people who provide that local park do so on annual estimates which they control. There is a strict control of expenditure on local parks in every local authority. Here we are talking about something very different indeed. The hon. Member for Penistone, splendidly conservative, refused to have any thought of any change at all. I am glad to have his confirmation. I think that we did too quick a conversion job on him at the Conservative Party Conference.

Mr. John Mendelson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the way to maintain revolutionary ideas in this country is

to defend the good things which we already have, as Cromwell had to do?

Mr. van Straubenzee: Yes, I am in favour of defending the good things. Clearly the majority of hon. Members want to defend the good things. But it is to be over-conservative to defend everything and to turn one's face against any kind of change.
As I have to deal with a technical point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) I must explain how this matter arises. The House knows that nearly every full-time student living in England or Wales who is taking a first degree course, or a course comparable with a first degree course at a university or other establishment of higher education, is entitled to an award from his local authority; that the award is paid at rates and is subject to conditions which are set out in regulations, and that, with the exception of a few provisions with which we need not concern ourselves, these are not matters over which the local education authority has any jurisdiction.
A student's award is calculated by taking into account, on the one hand, his requirements and, on the other hand, his resources. His requirements include the payment of various fees and subscriptions, and include the subscription to a student union or similar body. It therefore follows that in every case covered by the relevant provision of the regulations the union subscription is paid as part of the student's award unless his resources, including his parents' contribution, are substantial.
The current provision relating to student union subscriptions is in Schedule 1 on page 8 of the Regulations. I should explain to my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus that, for reasons into which I shall go, the Government decided to table certain Amendments to the Regulations by a Statutory Instrument against which, as lie reminded us, he subsequently prayed. I thought I inferred from his speech—I hope I was not unduly suspicious—that he had a slight feeling that, finding we were being prayed against, we had ducked below the surface and come up with another Statutory Instrument to do him down. If that is what he has in mind, I can reassure him absolutely on that point. The answer was given by


my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill). Earlier this year the Government agreed certain major changes—I hope and think that they are beneficial—in the rates of student grants. There were certain major changes, for example, in parental contributions, and so on. I need not go into those. It was obviously convenient to have them in one document as soon as possible for the start of the year. That is the only reason for them being consolidated. I assure my hon. Friend that the idea of doing him in the eye did not enter into the discussions which led to consolidation. I am anxious to remove that thought.
The wording in Statutory Instrument No. 884, against which my hon. Friend prayed, is the same as that in the consolidated document, but it differs from that in the Awards Regulations of 1970 made by the previous Government, and was first introduced by us in May, 1971.
I should explain why the amended wording was introduced. The amended wording had a limited purpose. That was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science on 1st March in answer to a Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). It was to provide a solution to a technical problem which had arisen about the payment of student union fees at the Kingston-upon-Thames Polytechnic, and was intended to stand for a limited time only.
The first point I want to make quite clear, because there is some misunderstanding about it, is that the mere fact that these words have been translated from a single Statutory Instrument No. 884 into a consolidated Statutory Instrument No. 1297 does not mean that my right hon. Friend has in any way changed her mind on the limited nature of the Amendments which have been made.
It might be that hon. Members wonder why we did not introduce changes of substance last May. In 1960 we saw the publication of the Report of the Anderson Committee on Grants to Students, and the Government of the day acted in 1962. The Report, and the Regulations made after it, stated that payment of fees and other dues to be made on behalf of award

holders attending the courses about which I am talking should include
subscriptions to students' unions, amalgamated clubs, and junior common rooms, membership of which is obligatory.
Those words stood until 1970 when the last Government altered them.
I had better give the quotation to make the point that follows. The quotation from the 1970 Regulations to which I am referring is:
… the subscription to any one association (being a students' union, an amalgamated club or a junior common room) membership of which is obligatory by reason of any provision of the instrument regulating the conduct of the establishment.
I understand, and I think that I recall this being said at the time, that the intention of the previous Administration was to avoid imposing on local education authorities a duty to pay more than one subscription in respect of any one student. Perhaps it is to the credit of the student bodies that, reading these Regulations carefully, as they did, some of them had thought up the idea of making compulsory the membership of a hall of residence, union or something of that kind, but think it was the intention of the House that in those cases only one student union subscription should be paid.
As I have said, 1971 saw us in difficulties at Kingston-upon-Thames Polytechnic. The essence of the problem was that although the membership of the polytechnic student union was thought to be automatic by virtue of the inclusion of the union fee in the sessional fee charged by the polytechnic, neither the articles of government nor the student union constitution approved under it provided for obligatory membership of the union. It followed that the powers of the Kingston local education authority to pay the subscription was defective, and that that was equally true of the powers of other local education authorities with award holders who were studying at that polytechnic.
It was understandable that that was a matter of grave concern, not only to the Kingston local education authority itself, but to the governors of the polytechnic and the students; and I think that it was a tribute to them all, and also to the National Union of Students, that it was possible to resolve the difficulty. I was told by the hon. Member for Penistone that I would be swept away in a


gale if I ever, in public, made an appreciative reference to the N.U.S. I think that I am probably one of the stout Members to whom reference was made by the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones). I think that possibly my size is such that the gale will need to be of considerable strength.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman normally quotes me correctly. I did not say anything about making appreciative remarks in public. I spoke about such remarks being made in the atmosphere of that anti-education debate at the hon. Gentleman's party's annual conference.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I think that the same words could have been used at the Conference. I must check my recollection, but I think it is true to say that the only time when references were made to the problem that we are discussing was when they were made by students, who themselves are in the thick of the problem, and they were certainly not made by elderly reactionaries, as was alleged.
So far, so good, but it was understandable that a number of people, including the members of the Kingston local education authority, had reservations, because they put it to us that they would have welcomed some provision in the Regulations prescribing how the amount of subscription paid as part of an award should be determined, or possibly what its level should be.
I want to draw the attention of the House—and by doing so bring it to the notice of the student bodies—the fact that had the Government been intent on doing real harm to the student body, or to student unions, that occasion would have been the point of time at which to have done it. I have concentrated upon Kingston local education authority, and upon Kingston Polytechnic, but it is probably true—though I must be careful not to assert this without checking the constitution of every polytechnic—that many others were similarly affected. It is on record that what my right hon. Friend did was to legitimise for a limited period a situation which hitherto everybody had thought existed. Had my right hon. Friend been filled with the kind of intentions suggested by the hon. Member for Penistone, that would surely have been the right time for her to have dealt with

the matter in another way. That she did not is proof of the general attitude of the Government.
I think that the House should have considerable sympathy with local education authorities which make suggestions of this kind, and certainly my right hon. Friend and I have kept them very much in the forefront of our minds in the consideration that we have been giving to this matter. The amending Regulations were the result of full consultations with local authority associations, with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors, and with the N.U.S., and I think that they fulfilled their immediate objectives.
It is understandable, and perfectly proper, that hon. Members on both sides should have made it abundantly clear that they want to keep this matter in perspective, but there is, nevertheless, concern about the way in which some student unions conduct their affairs. I respond most firmly to the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), and others, that the matter should be kept in perspective, but there is widespread criticism of the procedures and policies adopted by some student unions.
There is considerable resentment at the strictly political donations made by some unions out of money received on a "most favoured nation" basis, by which I mean that for all practical purposes the money is provided compulsorily to the student union. Concern has rightly been expressed here—and if it is not expressed here where should it be expressed?—at the unfair discrimination which sometimes occurs between different groups and societies within a college or university. I repeat that it is necessary to keep this matter in perspective, but nobody does the student cause any good by trying to pretend that these things do not exist.
I appreciate that such matters as this get a considerable amount of publicity. May I therefore say that to the best of my understanding and knowledge the number of cases of abuse of union funds, and certainly the number irregularities of procedure, is relatively small, especially when one takes into account the number of institutions of higher education in the country as a whole.
It may not be very large, but I suggest to the House that there is a principle involved here. It is what restraint should


be observed, or, indeed, what restraint should be imposed, when democratically elected student bodies have at their disposal considerable sums of money which come from the pockets of ratepayers and taxpayers, and come in a way which, so far as I know, with possibly one exception, does not apply to any other head of expenditure in a university or college?
Obviously, the first consideration is that the student unions must act within the limits of their constitutions. Generally speaking, the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central, was right when he said that the constitution of the union and any amendments to it had to be approved by the college or university authorities, but it seems to me that in too many cases there is a tendency on the part of those authorities to consider their responsibilities discharged once the constitution has been approved. It would be very encouraging if they felt a continuing responsibility, if not a formal then at least a moral responsibility, for seeing that the principles of the constitution were not breached. An idea of that kind would be among those to be considered in any change which we might wish to see.
Obviously, the general body of students, too, has a very big share of responsibility. I am not always sympathetic with students who complain about the result of a particular vote on this or that—at least, not in a properly corporate union—but who go to meetings only infrequently. If a student does not take part and does not attend, he ought not to complain.
Finally, I think that all members of the academic community, the governing body, the staff and the students, have a corporate and common interest in fostering a vigorous and responsible student organisation. Reference has been made to the very impressive and quietly written memorandum on this matter—membership and financing of student unions—issued by the National Union of Students. If my memory does not serve me wrongly, I have a feeling that the right hon. Gentleman drew extensively from it to set out, very fairly, the reasons why student unions exist. I accept entirely the social and some of the recreational facilities within the university or college which it is the purpose of the student union to provide. I accept that it is the focus for

activity by the student body as a whole and that it has certain other important, sometimes representational, functions.
As I have said, I think that the whole House will accept that a properly organised student union is an integral part of the academic community and has an essential part to play. This was certainly reflected in what has come to be known as the concordat between the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and the local authorities, issued jointly with the N.U.S. in 1968.
It is absolutely understandable, however—and there are people in the student body who do not always give this sufficient importance—that the organisation and financing of student unions should be of particular concern to the local education authorities. After all, a large part of the costs of students' fees and maintenance, including the cost of union subscriptions, falls on them.
I sometimes detect a resentment that the L.E.A.s should be concerned in this matter, but it is a resentment which I frankly reject. Outside the universities themselves it is the L.E.A.s who mainly provide and maintain the institutions of higher education. In the university sector they have been concerned for some time because union subscriptions have undoubtedly been increasing sharply, and the L.E.A.s find themselves committed to a growing expenditure over which, as I have explained, they have no effective control. In the university sector, therefore, they are faced with an automatic income presented to the unions at a pre-determined level.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South referred to provision for students in the non-university sector. He was absolutely right, but as we succeed—as we certainly shall—in improving the provision for students at, say, the polytechnics, so, frankly, will the pressure for an increase in the student union fees increase. Therefore, we are dealing not with a diminishing factor, but with a factor which, if anything, is likely to increase.
I absolutely understand that the L.E.A.s, with their growing commitments in many sectors, including the rapidly growing sector of higher education, should be anxious and watchful about this head of expenditure.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman has just used a formulation which might be interpreted rather dangerously. He said that he could understand the resentment of some members of local authorities who have to pay these contributions without an automatic control over what happened afterwards. Surely they cannot expect any automatic control. A local education authority is constituted to support students for their educational activities, for instance, for their study of philosophy. A local authority cannot expect because it has paid the grant to have any automatic control over what is done in the learned institutions concerned. That must be left to the governing body of the institution.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman has slightly misunderstood what I said. I hope that he will take it at its face value when I say that I should not want to see, and I do not think that any hon. Member speaking in the debate would want to see, detailed supervision over academic matters in either the university or the non-university sector. But the point which the hon. Gentleman has to meet and which he has not met—and that is rare for him—is that this is the one heading of expenditure—I can think of possibly one other—in which, in both the university sector and the non-university sector, expenditure is imposed on the award-paying L.E.A. without its going through some form of further scrutiny.
In the non-university sector, the polytechnics, for example, the annual estimates will rightly be approved by the maintaining L.E.A.s. As things stand, if the governors certify that a sum is the right sum for the union subscription, that ends the argument. The hon. Gentleman must realise that what he is seeking to perpetuate is a position of privilege which is not accorded to any other head of expenditure, and it is that to which we have to direct our attention. There is no student bashing in saying that. It is merely searching for one way or another of bringing to this problem some such financial disciplines as are applied to every other head of expenditure, whether in the university or the non university sector.
Mention has been made of Questions answered from time to time by my right hon. Friend when she has clearly indicated that we have been studying these matters closely. I thought that my hon. and learned Friend was a shade critical of the time the study has taken. I do not apologise for the amount of time.
First, and I have not heard this reflected in the debate so far, the matter is complex in three aspects. The student unions themselves exhibit in miniature that enormous variety of structure which is such a remarkable characteristic of our system of higher education as a whole. One of the things which has come out of the inquiry which the Committee of Vice-Chancellors, the local authorities and ourselves in partnership have instituted is that there is an infinite variety of provision through a wide range of college and universities.
Secondly, a considerable number of bodies have an important interest in the future of student unions and we have to try to frame proposals which, so far as possible, will meet their differing requirements. Thirdly, we thought it right closely to examine all the different proposals which have poured in upon us. I think that in a short time I have read every one from whatever source and whatever part of the political spectrum.
I do not know whether hon. Members have noticed—perhaps they have not had time—that on Monday of this week, in a Written Answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who, as the House knows, has taken a considerable interest in this matter, my right hon. Friend said that she would shortly be sending a memorandum outlining some proposals to the interested parties, and the interested parties will of course include our partners in this matter, the local authorities, who have a leading part to play and a leading commitment, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and the National Union of Students. I must ask the indulgence of the House if I do not outline the particular proposals in the memorandum. I cannot do that, because it will be in the form of a consultative document on which, before reaching decisions, it is essential to obtain the views of the bodies concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to say that the National Union


of Students, for example, has made clear its willingness to discuss these matters. I am sure that I can also rely upon the other bodies concerned to examine the proposals constructively. But as they will also be matters of public concern, my right hon. Friend is proposing, as she said on Monday, to make them public at the same time, so that public points of view and the views of hon. Members can also be brought to bear.
There is a large number of different possibilities. There is, for example, that which has been pressed upon me, of total voluntary membership. It is only fair to those of my hon. Friends who have put this point to make it clear that as I understand them what they are arguing for is that the student himself should control the same sum which was previously sent forward for him compulsorily, and that he would make the decision as to whether or not he spent it on a subscription or whatever—I see one of my hon. Friends showing disagreement.
Clearly this is a subdivision of that concept; and there is eminent respectability for the concept of a registrar. Not only did it emerge from a Select Committee on which I myself served but the concept of a registrar was first introduced by students, at the time for a different purpose, to form a body to which they could appeal over the university and college authorities. I realise that the Committee clothed the idea, but it is worth recalling that it came from the student side.

Sir F. Bennett: Would my hon. Friend at least accept that a substantial body of opinion does not want to interfere with the structure of the present student unions but only wants control to go to the point at which the funds, whatever they are, to whatever student body they go, are not used to subsidise political activity?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am obliged: I did not do justice to this very important third possibility. Indeed, I venture to float a fourth, which, as I understood the debate, would seek to divide those expenditures which are common to all students and might well vary radically from university to university and which are at the disposal of all, from the strictly political activities of the union. Or it might be that that principle could be

extended towards the position of the student not merely in political matters but in some of the cultural and other activities which are a worthwhile part of the corporate life of the university.

Mr. John Mendelson: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this proposal of a registrar, which I believe would seriously interfere with the necessary independence of the university, he should not now try to use the proposal from a few students for what many at the time regarded as misguided reasons, because they wanted to interfere with university independence by means of an appeal to the State or somewhere else, and clothe that proposal, hairbrained as it was, with the introduction of the registrar concept for different purposes. Both would be equally wrong and an equal interference with university independence.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The respectability of the student union registrar concept comes not from those who originally introduced it but from the imprimatur given to it with the full authority of a Select Committee presided over with great skill by a distinguished Member of the hon. Member's own party and including Members of widely differing viewpoints in both parties. Indeed, when one considers the breadth of political outlook on that Select Committee, it is remarkable that, on this point at least, there was unanimity. It is not to be shrugged aside. I simply made the point of how the idea first arose.
Fundamentally, the point at issue in this question is the proper balance between freedom and responsibility. Four parties are principally concerned—the students; the governors or, in the case of university, government, and the staff of the colleges; the local authorities; and, of course, the Government.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I detect that my hon. Friend is coming to a conclusion, so I should like to be more sure than I am that he has hoisted on board in his consideration of the various propositions advanced in this debate the real dubiety which must remain about the desirability of a closed shop system in the universities, where a small minority of students are obliged to finance that closed shop out of their own resources, although they may not use the facilities.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I think that my hon. Friend will also agree that, in differing ways, all three of the proposals so far canvassed in this interesting debate get at what I understand is a deeply held anxiety by some students, the smallness of whose number makes them no less important. Clearly, total voluntary membership emphatically does. Clearly, if they had the right of appeal to a registrar, this would arm them as they are not armed at present.
Third, some of my hon. Friends argued that the compulsory provision was directed towards those things which are communal matters for all students and did not refer to those matters over which an adult might well be expected to make his own decisions. This would also make a fundamental change in the compulsory nature of student unions. But I give my hon. Friend this absolute assurance, that the strength of feeling of some students on the compulsory nature of their membership has been, in his phrase, well and truly hoisted on board.
I was saying that I thought that, fundamentally, the point at issue was to keep a balance between freedom and responsibility. It is natural and understandable that the students want the greatest possible freedom of action for their organisation and the security of financial support for all those activities which give point, life and indeed colour to a university or college.
I would agree that student union facilities need adequate and secure support. What I am saying is that I am far less sure that we are going about that support in the right way. That is why I have tried to draw attention to the announcement that my right hon. Friend will shortly issue this memorandum
In the consideration and consultations which will then follow, I believe that, not for the first time, the discussions in this House will be of very great value.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the provisions in the Awards (First Degree, etc. Courses) Regulations 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 1297) relating to the subscriptions to Students Unions and similar bodies.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY (COMPULSORY INSURANCE)

7.10 p.m.

Mr. David Watkins: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) General Regulations 1971 (S.I. 1971, No. 1117), dated 9th July, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th July, be annulled.
I wish to make it clear at the outset that my co-signatories and myself do not intend to oppose the Regulations to the extent of forcing a Division. Our primary object in securing this debate is to enable certain matters in the Regulations to be discussed and particularly to enable the Under-Secretary to give certain assurances.
The Regulations bring into operation the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act, 1969, as from 1st January next, with the exception of Regulations 6 and 7, which are concerned with the display and production of certificates of insurance, which do not come into operation until 1st January, 1973. I understand the reason for the lapse of one year in bringing those into operation compared with bringing the Act in general into operation, and I do not intend to enlarge on that aspect of the matter, though some of my hon. Friends may wish to do so.
I understand the reason for the delay because the Act began as my Private Member's Bill. I have a paternal affection for the Bill and the Regulations. There is, therefore, no question of my wishing to oppose the Regulations strongly because obviously I would have no interest in delaying the operation of the Act.
Regulation 2 is headed:
Prohibition of certain conditions in policies of insurance".
This is extremely important and in many ways goes to the heart of the central principle of the Act. It seeks to ensure that there are no loopholes in the operation of the principle of compulsory insurance against employers' liability. The problem is to ensure, first, that there are no loopholes which would enable unscrupulous employers to avoid insuring against their liability and, secondly, to ensure that unscrupulous employers and insurers are not able to escape having to pay to any injured employee that to which he would


be legally and morally entitled by way of compensation for his injury.
The various parts of Regulation 2 go a long way towards meeting this problem and it seems from Regulation 2(1)(a) to (d) that all foreseeable eventualities have been covered. I appreciate the problems involved in stopping up all possible loopholes and the need for these provisions.
However, the regulations for exemption from the application of the Act—the Secretary of State is empowered in Section 3(1)(c) to make regulations defining the exemptions—have not yet been laid. I understand that they must be laid between now and the coming-into-operation of the Act.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I intervene only to help the hon. Gentleman by telling him that he is right; that they will be laid before the coming into operation of the Act.

Mr. Watkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that assurance.
Will the Minister go further and assure us that all possible avenues of escape through loopholes and all possibilities of evasion have been looked into? The various loopholes that appeared earlier appear to have been filled, but may be assured that the safeguards will not be weakened when the regulations dealing with exemptions are laid? I hope that we shall receive an assurance that the spirit and intention of all the regulations will be to brook absolutely no defaulting whatever in the operation of the Act.
Regulation 3 sets a limit to the amount of compulsory insurance:
The amount for which an employer is required by the Act to insure and maintain insurance shall be two million pounds in respect of claims relating to any one or more of his employees arising out of any one occurrence".
I understand that, during the consultations which took place on the drawing up of the Regulations, pressure was brought to bear on the Department of Employment to have no limit but to leave this as an open-ended arrangement. I cannot speak with certainty, but I surmise that the insurers wanted a smaller limit. I speak from the experience of conversations I had with them during the passage of the Bill. At that time I was thinking in terms of a limit of £1 million.
Bearing in mind all that has happened in the two years since the Bill received the Royal Assent, though being aware of the problems of insurers, including their financial problems in connection with reinsurance and similar technical matters and the likely size of claims, it seems that £2 million is reasonable. We are legislating for a long time ahead and it is to be hoped that the limit of £2 million will not be too badly eroded by inflation.
I draw attention to a working paper which was published yesterday by the Law Commission and which questioned whether judges were awarding high enough damages in accident cases. It was a remarkably good niece of timing on the part of the Royal Commission in view of this debate. Insurers invariably bemoan what they consider to be the too high level of awards being made by judges, but the Law Commission pointed out that many people feel—this is indeed a widespread feeling among informed people—that judges are not making sufficiently high awards and are not taking inflation sufficiently into account. That is a sobering thought when we are considering the prescribed limit under Regulation 3.
It is a sobering reflection, also, that what we are discussing here—if it is possible to discuss it in these terms—is financial recompense for the loss of a finger, a hand, an arm, an eye, a leg, or even a life, as only too tragically happens sometimes. I put those thoughts to the Minister in reference to the limit prescribed.
I am glad to express my appreciation to the Under-Secretary of State for his ready willingness to keep me informed and to seek my views during the drafting of the Regulations, and I include in my thanks the officers of his Department.
As I say, I have certain paternal feelings towards the Act itself, since I had the honour of piloting it though the House as a Private Member's Bill, and I recall that it received the Royal Assent on, literally, the very last day of the Parliamentary Session in 1969. It received the Royal Assent after a series of cliff-hanging exercises, both here and in another place, which will certainly live in my memory if in no one else's. The success of the operation was made possible only by the warm co-operation of a small


but determined group of hon. Members on both sides.
The coming into operation of the Act through these Regulations will be an important step forward in industrial safety and accident prevention. There may well he beneficial side-effects resulting from a general tightening up in respect of employers' liability insurance. There are employers—I do not for a moment suggest that they are representative of the good majority—who need to pay better attention to the prevention of industrial accidents. Financial necessity, if nothing else, may now induce such employers to face their responsibilities. If by passing the Act and the Regulations we do anything at all to reduce the toll of accidents, which is the object of the exercise, we can look back upon some work well done.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I add my congratulations to the Government on bringing these Regulations forward, and I echo the appreciation expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) for the courtesy and friendship we have experienced since he and I have been concerned in pressing for them to be laid at the earliest opportunity. The Under-Secretary of State has always shown us great courtesy in discussing these matters, and I endorse all that my hon. Friend said.
The fundamental importance of these Regulations can be seen even more clearly today. I was looking at the figures published yesterday regarding accidents at work. It is said that they are costing about 1 million a day or, translated into annual terms, over £250 million a year, which is about half our balance of payments surplus.
The importance of avoiding accidents at work can readily be seen. I find it a little sad that the running mate, as it were, of these Regulations, the Employed Persons (Safety) Bill did not finish its course. Although we were able to take it through Committee, it could not find time to be brought to the Floor for Third Reading and be sent to another place. If only we could have had that along with these Regulations, a tremendous step would have been taken towards reducing enormous cost to the nation of

over £250 million a year and, what is more, the cost in terms of life and disability for people at work in industry.
I am a little worried about one or two matters in the Regulations, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to help me. As my hon. Friend said, Regulation I provides that Regulations 6 and 7 shall not come into effect until 1st January, 1973. He ventured his view as to why that had been done. I shall venture mine. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will tell us the facts.
There is an argument to the effect that any employer should have a period of time in which he can have his insurances renewed and that, if the full Regulations came into force on 1st January next year, someone's insurance could be, so to speak, betwixt and between, if, for example, he took his insurance out on 31st December and it was not renewable till the following 30th December. If, therefore, his insurance ran out at the end of this year, before 1st January, 1972, he would have right until the end of 1972 before he had to renew it and, accordingly, he could not comply with the requirement to exhibit under Regulations 6 and 7, although, under the first Regulation, he should have his insurance in order.
Employers have had time since the passing of the Act in November, 1969 to put their house in order, and I find it a little hard to accept that we should now give them a further year to ensure that their insurances are such that certificates can be exhibited. One can only assume that a man would fail to exhibit his insurance certificate if it were not proper in accordance with the terms of the Act or if he did not have it at all. So I am not inclined to accept the explanation that he might be betwixt and between. However, I may have misunderstood the situation, and I look forward to hearing from the Government about it.
I turn to Regulation 2. I have tried, as we all do, to seek advice from people who know, and I am told that it could be said, even under the terms of these Regulations, that an insurer could allege that misconduct was a reason for refusing to honour an obligation. I do not know whether that is correct; I merely put it to the Minister. On my reading of the Regulation 2(1)(a), which I had thought


eliminated questions of misconduct, that does appear possible—
in the event of some specified thing being done or omitted to be done after the happening of the event"—
and so on. Could the question of alleged misconduct be fitted in there? I do not know. I hope that the Minister will satisfy himself that no insurer could allege that an employee, because of some alleged misconduct, had put himself outside the ambit of the Regulations or the insurance which his employer had taken out.
I turn to Regulation 6. I want the certificate which is exhibited to be meaningful. The draft in the Schedule will not mean much to the ordinary person. I take it that the important part is,
Signed on behalf of … (Authorised Insurer)".
How is the person on the shop floor to know who is authorised? Does "authorised insurer" mean that the Minister will have a list of insurance companies for whom he is vouching? How does he suggest that an ordinary person would know whether an insurer was authorised?
Many people may well find that the premium they are now asked to pay is more than they would wish. They may want to be in business for only a relatively short time, and therefore they may put up a certificate which is misleading, to say the least. It is true that if an employee is hurt and compensation is not paid because he is not insured, the employer is liable to be prosecuted. But it does not help the injured person to know that his employer was fraudulent and did not put up a proper certificate. I hope that the Minister can tell me that people will be able to recognise that an insurer is authorised when they want to be sure that they are fully covered.
Regulation 8 allows the factory inspector to demand to see the insurance certificate, on giving reasonable notice. But does Regulation 7 mean, as I hope it does, that the copy must be lodged with the factory inspectorate or with the Ministry? The factory inspector rarely gets round to all the factories in his area, so if the copy were not seen until he made a normal visit it could be a considerable time before he found that an employer was not conforming to the Regulations.

If the employer has to lodge the copy with the factory inspectorate, as I hope, the inspector will be able to see any changes and notice any special points that arise much sooner than if he simply relies on his spot checks.
I am a little worried about the figure of £2 million given in Regulation 3. I know how hard the Under-Secretary worked to put that figure in, so I am being a little greedy in wanting a bigger figure, but I am thinking of inflation. In view of changing circumstances and assessments for accidents, I hope that there is a provision by which that amount can be increased without the need for another Regulation.
I welcome the Regulations. I am delighted that we can now tell all employees that wherever they go for their employment they should satisfy themselves that insurance certificates are exhibited and that they are properly covered.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I, too, congratulate those responsible both for the original Act and for the Regulations on closing an important loophole in the provisions whereby employees are protected and compensated when they suffer accidents in the course of their work.
Almost all employers have always insured against personal injury to their employees in the course of their work, but there has always been a small fringe who did not take that elementary precaution. Unfortunately, that small fringe tended not only to be irresponsible but to consist of those firms which avoided insuring because they were very short of cash and very small, sometimes being rather fly-by-night organisations. Being the kind of firms which tended to want to save on things like insurance premiums to protect their employees, they also tended to want to save money on safety precautions inside their factories.
Therefore, on those occasions when those of us whose work outside the House is largely involved with personal injury claims arising from industrial accidents came across a case of an uninsured employer, only too often it was a case of a deplorable breach of Factories Act requirements and similar requirements, in


which the employer had saved money on all the guards and protective devices for his machinery as well as on insurance premiums. The result for the individual employee was that his remedy in the courts was worthless, because he invariably found himself suing a small firm or one-man employer whose resources were inadequate to pay the damages; any action in the courts was simply against a man of straw, who could not satisfy the judgment. By failing to insure, the employer had taken away from his employee all those protections which Parliament, through the Factories Act and Regulations, had sought to give employees over the years, as had the common law and the law of negligence.
The Regulations effectively close the loopholes. In particular, Regulation 2 (1)(b) and (c) seem to cover the possibility of a bogus insurance policy ruling out liability for negligence and for breaches of the Factories Act and the Regulations covering particular trades. These are the two headings under which almost all claims against employers are brought. Therefore, the position is very much improved.
But there remains one small group of cases which will still not be adequately covered by the Act and the Regulations. From now on, employees will be effectively covered in almost all those cases so long as their employers comply with the law, but there will still be every now and again a small number of employers who, although the factory inspector has not yet discovered it, are breaking the law. It is possible, for instance, with some sub-contractors in the building trade who employ men on building sites for the factory inspectors to have extraordinary difficulty in tracing them and discovering whether they are complying with the law.
There is an analogy with the other class of personal injury claims which is before the courts a great deal. It is valuable to consider what happens in road accident cases. Parliament makes it compulsory for anyone with a motor car to insure for a wide category of persons, and that category has been widened to include passengers. However, there are cases in which uninsured motorists cause injury to people, and then the Motor Insurers Bureau agreement makes sure

that they have a real prospect of receiving proper compensation from insurers. Would my hon. Friend consider the possibility at some stage of trying to obtain a similar agreement for employers' liability cases? I understand that such insurance is fairly profitable for the firms engaged in it, and as they are responsible companies it is probable that they would respond to approaches from his Department, so that those very few employees who might have bad injuries inflicted on them in employment by an employer who is still defying the law, and is not insuring, might be adequately compensated.
The figure of £2 million given in Regulation 3 appears to be very generous, but, quite apart from the reservations expressed about the effects of future inflation, I wonder why that global figure has been chosen. Why has it not been expressed as a certain figure per employee, which might be more appropriate? The sum of £2 million is clearly an enormous figure for a very wide range of small employers. There are a few giant organisations to which £2 million is a figure which is rapidly becoming rather inappropriate to the total amount of claims to which they might become liable if a major catastrophe occurred at a large plant. I wonder whether the possibility of having some figure per employee was considered as an alternative.
It would be inappropriate to go too far beyond that, following the remarks about the level of damages for industrial injuries and other flatters, although, like the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins), I welcome the recent proposals attempting to get more uniformity in awards of damages in personal injury cases. I hope that this will not be taken too far because there are difficulties in automatic figures for loss of limbs. For example, the loss of a finger is quite different for the professional piano player from the loss of a finger for a Member of Parliament, and physical injuries are more important to those engaged in physical work than to those engaged in clerical work. Given this, and the impossibility of getting an automatic table which would cover every conceivable case, I share the interest in and appreciation shown by the hon. Gentleman of the recent proposals, which might get away from the present rather unfortunate


situation where there is sometimes widespread disparity from court to court in awards of damages.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Peter Archer: This matter has ceased to be a party issue—and I use that form of words advisedly. I endorse every word of the speech of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke). I endorse his diagnosis of the problem; I endorse his suggestion to safeguard against those who may not comply with the Act and the Regulations; I endorse his final remarks.
Now that there seems to be no longer an issue in this House on some of the matters which were perhaps the subject of an argument at earlier stages, it is only right for me to join in congratulating the Minister on what are obviously very carefully drawn Regulations. They are very well drawn, if I may say so, and are obviously intended to make the Act effective. We are grateful for what is a significant milestone in this legislation.
I also seize the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins). At last, after all his labours, the cutting edge of the tool is nearing whatever the cutting edge of the tool actually has to touch. There are those in the country who will be benefiting from these regulations in a very short time although, perhaps happily, they may not know it at the moment. This is one example—there are many others—of the contribution he has made to industrial safety.
But, of course, this is not a method designed to prevent industrial accidents, as my hon. Friend recognises. It is designed to ensure that, where we have been unsuccessful in preventing accidents, the unhappy victim will be compensated. In a sense, it may almost have the reverse effect because what we are doing is to ensure that employers do not themselves carry the risk of having to pay civil compensation for the effects of their own negligence. But this price is worth paying in order to ensure that the victims of accidents are adequately compensated.
Certainly I would not be easily put off with the argument, if anyone sought to use it, that nevertheless there is some kind of deterrent entailed here because

insurance companies may always increase the premiums for employers with a large number of accidents. In my experience, this does not happen. Usually, employers of any substance have insured so much of their business of different kinds with one insurance company—their vehicle fleet, their works cars, their works pension scheme, and so on—that no insurer is likely to twist their tails by putting up their premiums in this sector of insurance.
The fact that we have successfully steered this part of our legislation to its conclusion provides no reason for feeling satisfied about other aspects of industrial accident prevention or in any way for inhibiting the efforts we were making previously. More power to my hon. Friend's elbow! These provisions do not eliminate all possible hazards, even in this sphere. It is still possible for two men working side by side to have virtually identical accidents—each losing an eye or an arm—and for one of them to be compensated, becoming perhaps moderately settled for the remainder of his life, while the other does not receive a penny because his accident did not happen to be anyone's fault and was just one of those things, or did not happen to be seen by a witness looking in the right direction at the right time. Because of this, the man may have to go through life with, added to his other burdens, the fact that he is in penury. There is still a great deal to be done and while we are, quite properly, congratulating ourselves, I hope that we shall not run away with the idea that this aspect of the problem has been sealed off.
Like other hon. Members, I invite the House's attention to Regulation 3. I, too, would welcome some information as to how the figure of £2 million has been arrived at. Obviously, to some extent, arbitrary judgments are involved. We cannot be sure what accident liability will arise in future. We cannot know what kind of damages will be awarded. But it would be helpful to know how the figure was arrived at and whether the suggestion, put by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, was considered—that the figure, instead of being a global, blanket figure should have been calculated on a per capita basis or on some basis which gave effect to the magnitude of the risks involved or of the undertaking. The figure is not self-evidently adequate.
One may have a large undertaking which suffers a major disaster in which a large number of people are injured. We have all known of the unhappy accidents—in collieries, for example, or where scaffolding on building sites has collapsed—in which a large number of claims have been involved. Or, there may be a period where, for some reason or other, there is a series of misfortunes. Presumably these considerations have been taken into account.
But it is not these considerations that I have primarily in mind. The pointer was indicated by my hon. Friends when they used the word "inflation". Has due account been taken of it? I am not sure that the question of inflation arises at the moment because the Court of Appeal in its wisdom has said, when one is calculating lump sum compensation for compensation for future loss of earnings, which is the usual way we have to do it at the moment, that one is not permitted to take account of the effect of inflation. This matter may well have to be put right so that inflation is taken into account.
On what assumption has this calculation been made? Is it upon the assumption that the law will remain unaltered? If the answer to that is "Yes", then the Department stands indicted, because there is a great deal of pressure at the moment to ensure that the law is altered. My hon. Friend referred to the new document published by the Law Commission which, due to my own fault, I have not yet had the opportunity of reading. But one has only to look at a number of recent cases to appreciate the difficulties, and how even some judges are obviously very unhappy at the situation. How far is the Department considering a possible change in the law? Such a change would obviously entail a substantial alteration in these Regulations.
I accept that what is in question here is not the scale of fines. We are not punishing employers for being negligent, we are seeking to compensate the victim of negligence. To that extent, the courts must seek to hold the balance—although perhaps it does not sound a very attractive balance, when we recall that it is being held between employers who, by definition, are either negligent or in breach of statutory duty and employees

who are the victims of their torts. Nevertheless, a balance the courts must undoubtedly hold. Where that balance lies depends to some extent on the value we set, on the one hand on capital investment and, on the other, on human working conditions, limbs, and earning power, human enjoyment of the amenities of life and, in the end, life itself.
I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown), who expressed certain doubts which were in his mind, because some of my trade union colleagues may have cause to wonder whether the judges who assess these damages look at matters in the way in which they look at them. I recollect as recently as 1967, when some of us in this House were complaining about the appalling accident figures, rising yearly, that a very distinguished judge, Lord Justice Danckwerts, said:
… the employer's life is a somewhat hazardous one. Indeed it would be a good deal safer to keep lions or other wild animals in a park than to engage in business involving the employment of labour.
With that we can wholly, and unhappily, agree. But the hazards of the employee's life demand our attention a little more readily.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Would my hon. and learned Friend agree that Regulation 3 means that while this is compulsory insurance and that an employer is liable to have it for an accident involving expenditure up to £2 million, it does not absolve a large employer, likely to experience a catastrophic situation, from insuring beyond that?

Mr. Archer: Indeed. It would be a tragedy if anything went out from this House tonight which encouraged employers to think that they were somehow relieved of the responsibility of ensuring that their insurances are adequate.
Damages in this country are very much lower than those in others. As the hon. Member for Rushcliffe has said, we cannot complain about the damages placed on pain and suffering on any arithmetical grounds, because there is no way of measuring adequate compensation for the loss of an arm or a finger. I have heard no reply to the New Testament question,


"What will a man take in exchange for his soul?" Equally, I have heard no answer to the question: what will a man have in exchange for his arm or his eye? Even such factors as these, which cannot be assessed arithmetically, are assessed much lower in this country than in the United States.
I have discussed this with American lawyers, and they are appalled at the level of damages awarded here. But there are other aspects of damages which lend themselves to scientific calculation. In calculating the loss of earnings of a man for the remaining period of his working life, it is possible to make use of actuarial tables, to look at the statistics.
I have hesitated over being carried away by statistics since I saw a document headed, "The Legal Profession, Broken Down by Age and Sex". But statistics can have their use in making this kind of calculation.
I never understood why it was that the courts were so reluctant to use it. Earlier today, I was looking at the report of the Court of Appeal proceedings in the case of Mitchell v. Mulholland (No. 2) which occurred in 1971. That involved an appalling accident in which a man suffered injuries, admittedly in a motor accident and not at work, but nothing turns on that. He had suffered a severe head injury with diffused brain damage, a comminuted fracture of the neck of the right femur, dislocation of both shoulder joints, permanent organic impairment and left-sided hemiparesis of the left arm and leg, spasticity of the right leg which is three inches shorter than the left, so that he could not walk unsupported. He had very poor control of his right arm diplopia in all directions and his speech was badly affected. The doctor said:
 "… he sits around a ward all day. taking no interest in anything; not reading or watching television…".
He said:
There can be no hope of any mental improvement, so that, even if his physical condition changed, he would not be employable.
The Court of Appeal was faced with the appalling difficulty of assessing what compensation he should receive.
The Minister has to take into account when he is formulating Regulation 3 the kind of answer the Court of Appeal might

give. What it said was that for the pain and suffering and loss of amenity, this man should receive £20,000. It sounds a substantial sum—it is a sum which none of us here would accept in exchange for the injuries which this man suffered. Then the court had to go on to consider the loss of earnings to the man for the remainder of his working life, taking account the kind of things which might happen to him. He might have been promoted, or his wages increased.
He might have been involved in other injuries, so that his working life came to a conclusion. He would have to pay income tax; it was very difficult. The court was offered the evidence of actuaries, of statistical tables and, on the whole, it rejected that evidence. I have hesitated, quite seriously, for some time before criticising what is obviously a very distinguished court. But faced with what has been said by another distinguished judge in an earlier case, this is how they concluded it:
I do not think actuarial tables or actuarial evidence should be used as the primary basis of assessment. There are too many variables, there are too many conjectural decisions to be made before selecting the tables to be used. There would be a false appearance of accuracy and precision in a sphere where conjectural estimates have to play a large part.
What that seems to amount to, with the greatest respect to a very distinguished Court of Appeal, is that because we have to make some guesses we ought to guess everything. One thing is certain; if the court had used actuarial tables, the damages would have been very much higher. If we make this kind of assessment of what a man has lost over the whole of his working life, stated baldly in a lump sum it looks enormous. It is enormous and, for that very reason, if we are compensating, why should we shrink from such a figure?

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does my hon. and learned Friend appreciate that in the mining industry men whose working life was ended at 30 as the result of an accident were lucky to get £4,000 to last them for the rest of their lives? This must mean that the courts did not take into account the span of the working life.

Mr. Archer: I agree. There are a number of people, including the Law Commission, who see the force of that


kind of example, and it is for that reason that I have trespassed upon the patience of the House and the limits of the rules of order by inviting the Minister to tell us whether these considerations have been taken into account and whether his Department has managed to pay some attention to the representations which have been made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury has spoken about the importance not only of the adequancy of the premium paid or the sum insured but of the insurance company carrying the insurance. There have been a number of unhappy instances recently giving food for thought. I appreciate what is said in subsection (1)(3)(b) of the Act. But we would welcome an assurance that a close eye is being kept on this because otherwise a number of people, including employers, will be lulled into a false sense of security and feel that, by putting the Act onto the Statute Book and enacting these Regulations we have solved all the problems.
A great deal of work has been done by a number of people to bring these Regulations to fruition. I hope that those whom they most benefit will know of them. Because we have lived with these things, thought about them, almost tossed over in our sleep thinking about them, we think that everyone must know of them. It is not so. A very informative report issued today by the National Institute for Industrial Psychology has brought home to us how little the man on the shop floor knows about the provisions covering his protection and the part that he can play.
Every politician knows how difficult it is for people whom he thinks should be better informed to keep themselves informed. Because they have other interests and other demands on their time, people do not know all the facts. Politicians know how easy it is for such people to annoy them by, as they think, being surprisingly ignorant.
On a number of occasions within the last few months I have received letters addressed to my predecessor as the Member for my constituency. He retired in 1966. I do not think that I receive less coverage in the local Press than most Members. However, there are people who obviously have other things to think about. A short time ago I received a

letter from an elderly lady who complained about the way in which I was running the local council housing department. We must not be shocked by these things. The moral is that if the man on the shop floor is not told in words which he can understand and has time to read, he will not know.
I do not complain about the drafting of the Regulations. I think that the drafting is admirable. But I hope that somebody will in due course paraphrase these Regulations in language which can be understood by ordinary people.
I offer my congratulations to the Government on their draftsmanship and to my hon. Friend the Member for Consett on the work that he has done and on his achievements.
I offer my congratulations, paradoxically, to the unhappy victims of future accidents who, although they do not yet recognise it, may find that what we have done tonight has been well worth while.

8.2 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I suppose all of us nurture the secret hope, if we fail to attain high office, that one day we may be responsible for a piece of legislation which we can call our own and which we pilot through the House of Commons and through Parliament generally.
Tonight it would be unjust of me not to pay tribute and to give credit to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins), who is a well-liked and respected Member of the House. He reminded us of the traumatic experience he underwent, as some of us know, in Committee and out in getting this valuable piece of legislation on to the Statute Book. The hon. Gentleman spoke about his paternal affection for the Act under which these Regulations are made. I congratulate the hon. Member on fostering the fledgling until it is now in a state where it can leave the nest.
We are grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the activities of the officials of the Department and their work in this connection.
It is always a joy to debate matters of health and safety with the trio of the hon. Member for Consett, the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer), and the hon. Member


for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown). It has been my lot to do this on a number of occasions. Although obviously for political reasons we often differ, it helps enormously to know that one's opponents, so to speak, are enthusiasts about the subject and that they bring to bear on it a great deal of experience and understanding. I appreciate the comments they made tonight in their welcome speeches.
I welcome the debate on this subject because, although fortunately it does not affect many of our fellow citizens, it is of considerable importance to the few who have had the misfortune to suffer injury or to contract disease as a result of an employer's negligence and who have then been unable to obtain the damages that have been awarded to them. As the hon. and learned Gentleman so rightly reminded us, there are many tragic cases of which we all know. Sometimes the damages which have been awarded seem to be all too small in the context of a man's losing his whole livelihood and finishing up as a cabbage.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Consett for his courtesy in co-operating with my Department over the various difficult stages in formulating these Regulations and for informing us in advance that he was tabling the Prayer. We appreciate that the Regulations are prayed against as an exploratory exercise rather than in any spirit of opposition.
When this legislation was passed by the House many of the points of detail were left to be settled during the preparation of the Regulations. After consultation with the interested parties we have arrived at these Regulations. Hon. Members will have noted that the Regulations make the Act operative from 1st January, 1972, by defining what will constitute an approved policy and the minimum amount of insurance cover which an employer must have.
The Regulations deal also with the issue, display and inspection of certificates. Regulation No. 4 brings into the scope of the Act certain employees who are not ordinarily resident in Great Britain.
Perhaps most important from the point of view of the coming into operation of the Act is the question of insurers issuing

certificates of insurance. The House may remember that insurers were given an undertaking when this Measure was discussed in another place that there would be an interval of six months between the laying of the Regulations and the coming into force of the Act. This was to allow the insurers time in which to prepare their administrative machinery. It accounts for the date of commencement being 1st January, 1972.
However, the requirement laid on insurers by the Act is that they issue a certificate of insurance whenever a contract of insurance is entered into or renewed after the Regulations come into force. They are required to issue a certificate to an existing policy holder, therefore, only when the policy comes up for renewal; and this could be at any time between 1st January, 1972 and 1st January, 1973.
I emphasise that the big change is that from 1st January, 1972 every employer is liable for insurance; and he will be committing an offence if he does not have it. As from that date various policies will be falling due for renewal. The moment they are renewed, the Act becomes fully operative in respect of those individuals and the liability they incur under their policies.
This is important, because it means that any other action which depends upon the existence of the certificate of insurance cannot take place until after 1st January, 1973. The House will observe that for this reason two of the Regulations do not come into operation until that date.
The question of enforcement of the Act is affected by the time scale I have mentioned. The number of employers who do not insure at present cannot be estimated. All the indications are that they represent a very small proportion of the total number of employers. In those circumstances we have concluded, as the previous Administration concluded and as was recognised when the Bill was before the House, that it would not be justifiable in terms of expense to create a separate inspectorate to enforce compliance with the Act.
I emphasise that the Factory Inspectorate will not be enforcing the Act. It has not been found feasible to use any existing inspectorate for this purpose. At least four separate inspectorates would be


involved, and not all of them are under direct Government control, it is possible that many of the smaller employers in whom we are particularly interested would fall outside the scope of all those inspectorates.
Therefore, enforcement will need to be largely dependent on employees inspecting the certificates of insurance which employers will be required to display. The T.U.C. has accepted that its members will have a large part to play in the enforcement of the Act. A Regulation has been made to require an employer to display a copy of his certificate of insurance at each of his places of business. This will be a burden on some large employers who have many branches, as, for example, multiple retailers, but I hope that the cost to them will be small when compared with the possible cost of a more formal enforcement procedure.
The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury, as indeed, also, the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton, asked how a person on the shop floor would know whether an insurer was an authorised insurer. I would say that the Department of Trade and Industry publishes a report in which a list of authorised insurers is given, the Insurance Business Annual Report, and this gives a very good indication as to those who are well regarded and those who are not. I do not believe that we shall encounter too much difficulty, once the trade unions become operative in this field in their knowing exactly who are those who need attention.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I am sorry that I missed the earlier half of the debate. I have had considerable experience in a practical sense in this field. Can the hon. Gentleman say, for example, what is the situation where a large employer for his own domestic reasons has an indemnity fund to meet any legitimate claims made on him for negligence for employers' liability in the usual way? There is quite a number of very big firms which have such funds. Would the hon. Gentleman perhaps correct a misunderstanding which might arise from what he has just said? I can vouch for it that trade unions have very capable legal departments which deal with at least 98 per cent, of all cases

which arise by negotiations outside the law courts.

Mr. Smith: I agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. On the other point about indemnity funds, if he will bear with me I will come to that a little later in my speech. I am sure that this is in very capable hands, and that trade unions can institute efficient inspection of these particular provisions and, indeed, as I say, because of the cost to manpower resources it is important that this should be done.

Mr. David Watkins: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this point I would like to say how extremely pleased I am to hear what he has just said. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill I consistently recognised that it would be largely dependent upon the activities of trade unionists and shop stewards to ensure that the provisions of the Act are enforced. At one stage there was a certain hostility to the whole idea of certificates being displayed and I feel that the Minister has completely vindicated what was one of the important points of the debate, one of the important points at issue during the passage of the Bill. It at least am very pleased to hear him say that.

Mr. Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was not a member of the Committee on the Bill and did not take part in those deliberations, but I can assure him that it will be largely dependent on the employees and I think it will be in good hands in that respect.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I disagree with my hon. Friend. I am rather worried because I read Regulations 7 and 8 specifically referring to inspectors appointed by the Minister. If what the hon. Gentleman now says is to be the case, is there not this fear? Suppose that a man in a workplace chooses to go looking for a certificate and it is not displayed and he then reports it. How long does the hon. Gentleman consider that that man will keep his job? Because immediately the onus of proof is being put on the man in the workplace to talk to the employer. Regulations 7 and 8 make it quite clear that it is the inspector's job to do that.

Mr. Smith: I think that as I go on the hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, gather how my own Department is involved in this matter. I do not believe that any


individual who pointed this out, would be likely to be fired. I think I should be out of order if I started talking about the Industrial Relations Bill, but under that I think the man would have a very good case of claiming unfair dismissal. The point is that the attention of my Department will be called to this and it will take action itself.
I was about to say—

Mr. Harold Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Smith: I ought to get on, but as it is the hon. Gentleman, I will give way.

Mr. Walker: There is a question raised about inspectors. I must say that I am rather concerned that he is telling the House that there will not be inspectors when he has just laid before the House Regulations providing for the function of inspectors. It seems rather contradictory that he has regulations which prescribe a role for inspectors and that then we are told there will not be inspectors. There is a contradiction which the hon. Gentleman must explain.

Mr. Smith: There will be those in my Department who will be responsible for this operation but it is not envisaged that the factory inspectorate—this is the point I was trying to get across to the House—will be responsible for this. A Regulation has been made, as I have just said, requiring an employer to display a copy of his certificate of insurance at each of his places of business, and it is very important that the employer does not have one token notice put up but has notices at all his places of business. Any failure to display can be reported to a local office of the Department of Employment for investigation, but I would hope that, on this matter, unions and individuals, before taking any such action, will discuss the matter with the employer, because in this way it should be necessary for my Department's officers to investigate only genuine cases of non-insurance. Those we are trying to get at here, as we all know, are those who are deliberately avoiding, not those who, through carelessness, may not have the right display.
I think that perhaps it will help the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) when I say that we shall keep

under review the question whether enforcement is adequate in the light of experience after the Act becomes fully operative in 1973, and provision has been made in the Regulations for my Department to require employers to send copies of their certificates by post to one of our offices.
The hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton made, I think, a very valuable point, that it is no use whatever Parliament making orders or regulations if the public does not know about them. This is crucial. We realise that it is essential that employers know of their obligations under the Act. For this purpose an explanatory leaflet has been produced by my Department for distribution on request. I hope—I know—that it will be in language much more readily understandable than the legal connotations of this document. An abridged version will be sent to every employer who exchanges his employees' National Insurance cards at any time during the next 12 months. A Press advertisement is being prepared, and full advantage of the opportunities presented by the other media will be taken to publicise employers' duties under the Act from 1st January, 1972. I hope that hon. Members will keep us on our toes, and that, if they think this is not sufficiently publicised, they will let us know, because it is our firm intention that these Regulations should be well known and understood and complied with by all employers as from 1st January next year. Employers not properly insured will become liable.
The hon. Member for Consett asked for reassurance that there would be no avoidance of responsibilities by either employers or insurers, and I should like to deal with that matter. It is clearly not possible for me to say that every employer will now take out insurance, and not even the most expensive enforcement procedure could guarantee that this would be so, but I should like to make it absolutely clear that we shall not hesitate to take action in any case where non-compliance comes to our notice.
Apart from these circumstances there are, in common with all insurance arrangements, situations in which the insurer can hold that the employer is not properly insured. All insurance policies invariably contain conditions—the so-called small print—which govern


the rights of the parties to the contract. This is relevant to the question of what is our approved policy for the purposes of the Act. The Act empowers the Secretary of State to make a regulation approving only those policies which do not contain conditions which have been explicitly prohibited by the regulation.
In considering the extent of the prohibition which is contained in the Regulation now before us it is convenient to divide the conditions into three groups.
The first of these refers to the right of the insurer in common law to avoid a policy where there has been a fraudulent statement or a misrepresentation in proposal documents. I stress that nothing in this Act can be used to prevent such a condition being invoked by the insurer, because I am advised that any contract entered into in such a way would be held to be void in common law.
The second category of condition in an employer's liability policy concerns those which restrict the range of activities that an employer can undertake; for example, restricting a builder to working below a specified height. We have taken the view that it would not be right to expect insurers to pay out for risks which they have not undertaken to insure, and this is in line with practice under the Road Traffic Acts, to which reference has been made. I remind the House that an employer who works outside such a restriction will be uninsured and immediately liable to prosecution under the Act.

Mr. Peter Archer: Where there is an unusual condition of this kind which may seriously affect the employees, will there be notice of it in the certificate which is to be exhibited?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and I am not. Rather than give an off-the-cuff answer, I should like to take advice on that point. Perhaps I may write and let him know the answer or perhaps he would arrange to put down a Question.
The conditions which are to be prohibited, therefore, relate to the more general matters which are covered by a policy and these conditions go a long way to satisfying the situation. The result is that it will, for example, no longer be possible for an insurer to avoid

a policy because an employer has not guarded a machine or has failed to take adequate fire precautions. Nor will it be possible for an insurer to refuse to pay an injured employee because the employer failed to notify the accident to his employer. In short, I hope that this Measure will prevent the type of case which has given so much concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House, from occurring in the future, and we can all think of some notorious examples.

Mr. Ronald Brown: The hon. Gentleman says that where action is taken to declare the policy void the case will not be covered. This was the situation which caused my hon. Friends to start out on this road. In that case the insurer had accepted two premiums from the employer. If that insurer should continue to sign as authorised insurer, at what stage will that insurer be liable? He will remember the case of the General, Accident, Fire, Life Insurance Corporation—

Mr. Smith: It is not right and proper for me to discuss specific cases from the past, but, as this now stands under the policies as proposed, the liability will be fairly and squarely on the insurance company to pay out. We have included in the Regulations the right for an insurer to recover from the employer any payments which he may have been called upon to make in cases where, but for this prohibition, he would not have been entitled to avoid the policy. This has the effect that if the employer goes into liquidation the insurer becomes the creditor of the employer instead of the employee being put into that position.
The hon. Member for Consett also raised the position of exempt employers in the private sector. As he knows, the Act contains the power to make regulations exempting certain classes of employer from the requirements of the Act, but these regulations have not yet been laid before the House. It is, therefore, outside the scope of this debate to deal with regulations which have not yet been made, but if I may crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to refer briefly to this point.
It was generally agreed during the passage of the Bill that it would be desirable, in the words of the spokesman for the last Administration, to provide


some exemption for organisations which have the necessary financial resources and which could be relied upon in all circumstances to pay any damages which may be awarded against them in court. This is the point which the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) brought out just now. We have examined several formulae which would define employers in the private sector to whom exemption could be granted, bearing in mind the primary requirement that any employer who is exempted must always be able to pay any damages awarded against him. However, we have been unable to find any formula which could distinguish between those employers who were solvent and those who were about to become insolvent. So we have decided that no employer should be exempt on the grounds of size alone, and I feel sure that hon. Members opposite will agree with this view. While I realise that this will cause some disappointment outside, I do not believe the consequences will be very severe.
We know of very few large employers who do not have any insurance of this kind, although a considerable number of them insure only in respect of sums greater than a specified amount. These employers rightly say that this enables them to give speedy and generous settlements and to build up good relations with their employees, and we do not wish to interfere with this on that account. I understand that there are available insurance policies which would enable the employer to continue to be responsible for the first amount of any claim but where the insurer would be ultimately responsible in the event of the employer not being able to meet his part of the claim.

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman is generously answering my point. May I take the example of two corporations, one in the private sector and one in the semi-private sector? The C.W.S. Limited is a great corporation dealing with many industries; it has always had its own internal trade insurance department and has always been able to meet any legitimate claims levied against its operations by the trade unions who negotiate on behalf of 38,000 or 40,000 workers.
The other example is the great group of Lever companies which has its own

internal insurance company known as Blackfriar Insurance, quoting from memory, which has always adequately met all claims. One has to have special regard to people with a good record so that they are not embarrassed by this sort of Regulation.

Mr. Smith: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I remind him that these Regulations are to catch the bad employer who is not fulfilling his social obligation. It is no part of our policy to interfere with those schemes where there are good relations and where it suits the employer to settle claims quickly, but there must be a safety net underneath for the big claim, for which the insurer must ultimately be responsible. I am advised that such policies as were referred to would meet the requirements of the Act without any question of the employer's exemption arising. I think that covers the hon. Gentleman's point. The particular companies to which he referred can settle down quite satisfactorily within the Regulations without any embarrassment to their arrangements.
In general, the exemption Regulations when laid before the House will deal with special cases involving employers who can offer satisfactory alternative forms of indemnity, for example where their funds are guaranteed by the Government, or those who insure through a Ship Owners' Protecting and Indemnity Club, which is a more specialised area.
A number of points have been raised about the limit of insurance which is an important point, and the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton made particular reference to this matter. Provision was made in the Act for the required amount of insurance to be limited because of the reinsurance problems facing insurers. After considering this matter we have decided that the minimum amount of insurance cover which an employer must have should be £2 million for any one occurrence. I am confident this should help the insurers without prejudicing the interests of employees.
An interesting reference was made to the Law Commission report on the award of damages and the fact that these should be higher. This is important and in some ways is very material to the whole question of health and safety at work, but I do not think it is a subject with


which I can deal tonight. The position is that this Act is concerned only with insurance against liability. The extent of that liability determined by the courts is not germane to the work of this Act. This is a legal matter for legal interpretation. We are concerned to make sure that people are properly covered by their insurance. The question of the judgment as to the amount of blame and the compensation must still remain with the courts, and I am sure the hon. and learned Member realises that.

Mr. Peter Archer: Surely the hon. Gentleman would concede that when discussing limits of liability for the purpose of these Regulations it is important to know the extent of that liability and what it is likely to be.

Mr. Smith: I do not think I had better get involved in a detailed argument with the hon. and learned Member on this point, much as I should like to do so. The overall cover there is £2 million for any one occurrence, and if we start talking about valuation of particular cases I shall be in serious trouble, particularly with the Law Officers.
I was asked why the limit was set at this amount. The limit has been chosen as being well above any known claim and is unlikely to affect anybody who is unfortunate enough to be injured as a result of an employer's negligence. Speaking from memory, the worst disaster where compensation was involved was the Melbourne bridge disaster in Australia when about £750,000 was paid out in compensation. God forbid we should have any disaster like that here, but it shows that even in a major disaster perhaps the sum of money may be below £1 million.

Mr. J. T. Price: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe the case he mentioned to be by any means the largest claim that has ever been made. There are numerous claims involving explosions or fires when a large number of people have been gravely injured or killed. It is always much dearer in terms of insurance to compensate the seriously injured person than to deal with dependants of somebody who has been killed. The injured person has to live out the rest of his life and may well be a liability to society. Therefore, I would not regard that as a correct statement by the Minis-

ter because I believe research would show him to be wrong.

Mr. Smith: I accept the hon. Member's admonition and would point out that I was speaking off the cuff. The point occurred to me while the hon. Member was speaking. I believe it is important that the amount should be set at the figure of £2 million which, so far as one could see, should be sufficient to cover the type of case which may be involved.

Mr. David Watkins: When the legislation originally went through the House a considerable amount of research was carried out. This, of course, was before the Melbourne Bridge disaster. We were not at the time of the legislation able to find any case where the sum had exceeded £300,000.

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that information. There seems to be some divergence of opinion on this matter, but I feel that £2 million is a quite formidable figure. It was fairly asked whether this sum would be eroded by inflation and whether it would be enough for the future. The Secretary of State has the power to adjust the limit upwards from £2 million if, in future, this appears to be insufficient. This is an important point and answers some of the questions which were put, since my right hon. Friend can take this action at any time in the future. No doubt succeeding Secretaries of State will keep this matter under review. Therefore, it would appear that the point will be well taken care of.
The other point on the question of cover which is important was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) in a valuable intervention. He asked about the equivalent in industry of the uninsured driver and what could be done on this point. There have been suggestions that, with the coming into force of the Act, there should be set up some kind of indemnity fund along the lines of the Motor Insurers Bureau. Out of the fund would be paid employees who could not otherwise obtain damages awarded to them.
Although the T.U.C. has been in correspondence with my right hon. Friend about setting up such a body, the Act does not confer upon him any power


to create one. While sympathising with the reasons which prompted the General Council of the T.U.C. to put forward this proposal, my right hon. Friend felt that it would be easier to see whether there was a need for an arrangement of this kind when the Act had come into force and after there had been time to see what effect it had had. While that is still our view, I accept that further consideration might need to be given to the question of a fund. One factor which would need to be taken into account is the examination which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is making of the adequacy of controls over insurance companies under existing legislation. I shall keep in close touch with this so that the interests of employees as well as others covered by compulsory insurance can be taken into account.
Up to the present, the practice has been for policies in this type of insurance to afford unlimited cover. I am aware, therefore, that the imposition of this minimum limit of £2 million for which an employer must insure could be construed as the maximum amount that insurers will offer for the present premium. The alternative open to us might force insurers into charging higher premiums to all employers because of the conditions in the reinsurance market and possibly into refusing cover to some employers in the higher risk businesses. It may be open to individual employers to negotiate any increased cover from their insurers if they wish. Again this is an important matter.
On the other hand, I know that some small employers have been amazed by the requirement that they should insure for £2 million, and they fear that their costs as a result will be exorbitant. I hope that they will realise that most existing policies already cover this figure, up to an infinitely large amount, and that the introduction of this limit should not involve them in additional expense.
I have spoken for a long time, and I apologise, but I wanted to be fair to hon. Members opposite who wished to interrupt. There are some important points here which needed bringing out, and I have tried to answer as many of them as possible. There is one that I have not yet mentioned. The hon. Member for Shore-

ditch and Finsbury asked about Regulation 7. I confirm that the certificate must be produced or sent. He asked me whether that was the case.
As the House realised when the original Bill became an enabling Act, there were many points of detail to examine before the Regulations now before us could be prepared. Throughout this examination, my Department has been concerned to combine the need to protect the interests of employees with the need not to upset existing satisfactory insurance arrangements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said, the position is much improved now. As a byproduct, it may lead to a tightening of safety arrangements. If it does, well and good, and we all join with the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton in hoping that that is a by-product of the Regulations.
It has not been possible to meet both requirements in all cases, but what has emerged is equitable legislation which can be operated in practice. The Act and these Regulations are good. They are an improvement on a situation which needed attention. I commend them, and I thank the hon. Member for Consett for all that he has done in bringing forward this Act of Parliament.

Question put and negatived.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clegg.]

STOWMARKET—NEEDHAM MARKET BYPASS

8.40 p.m.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I am raising this evening a question which is of pure constituency interest and, therefore, other hon. Members may not want to speak about it, but at this hour it means that there will be an opportunity for other subjects to be raised on the Adjournment.
I want to raise the question of the completion of the bypass on the A45 round Stowmarket, Needham Market and Claydon, a distance of 10 to 11 miles. I am doing this at the first opportunity after the Minister's announcement of his acceptance of a scheme after what my


constituents and I feel is great and unnecessary delay.
Perhaps I should recapitulate the story. In the 1950s I took a delegation from the Stowmarket Urban District Council to the Ministry of Transport to see the then Parliamentary Secretary, the present Lord Nugent of Guildford now in another place. It was not about a bypass. In the 1950s, everybody realised that the main road through Stowmarket was congested and too narrow and that a relief road was necessary, and this was discussed. There have since been many changes of mind and planning. No one seems to have realised until recently the importance of having a dual carriageway from the West to the East; from Birmingham right through to the Port of Felixstowe. Over the years, especially in the 1960s, there have been outline schemes as the idea of a bypass for Stowmarket developed. It was then decided to go further and to include Needham Market. That plan seemed to be going ahead when someone had the idea of extending it still further round Great Blakenham and even round the village of Claydon, which was then growing. Claydon is only three miles from the town of Ipswich. This is where we got into great difficulties, because Claydon is not an easy place round which to make a bypass.
I wrote to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) saying that I would have to raise—not personally against him in any way—the conduct of his Ministry when he was the Minister in the last Labour Government. He acknowledged my letter and said that owing to this debate being early, it might not be possible for him to be here. I quite understand.
The reason was that the Eastern Construction Unit stationed at Bedford—part of the Department of the Environment, as it is now called, not the Ministry of Transport—produced the biggest cockeyed scheme which has ever been seen for running a bypass—an overhead road through the village of Claydon which would have been at the level of people's bedrooms. This naturally caused a tremendous outcry from the villagers of Claydon. They were concerned not only about their houses which were affected, but about being overlooked in their back gardens, the noise, and everything else. As far as I can ascertain, this was the first case of

an overhead road being built through a village, although they have been built in urban districts. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park, as Minister, was wrong to endorse and allow this scheme to come forward. It would have disrupted the well-being of many people's lives and property.
The East Suffolk County Council was never happy with this line through Claydon, but wanted another route which was termed the "river route". The council was told by the Ministry that it would cost more, and under the hard-hearted Labour Government people's needs and well-being were not considered at all.
When this scheme came into final form, nearly every man and woman in the area put in objections, and an inquiry was fixed to be held in the early part of September last year, 1970. It follows, therefore, that my right hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who is to reply to the debate tonight, cannot be held responsible for this scheme, or for what happened before. When they assumed office on that great day in June last year this inquiry was fixed, and the scheme had been set out.
I gave evidence against the Ministry's scheme, and in favour of the river route, as did many other people in Claydon and the neighbouring areas. A local county councillor, Mr. Mills, working under tremendous difficulties and pressure of time, produced an even wider route round the village. It had a lot of merit, but it was a good deal more expensive than the river route. The upshot was that the inspector upheld the river route, and I am informed that his decision was known in about February of this year.
This is where I am afraid I must attach some blame to the present Minister, not so much to him personally, but to his Department, for a general slackening off in progress. The etiquette of the House is to blame a Minister for what happens in his Department, and the fault lies in failing to realise that the Ministry's first scheme was useless and would not be accepted by the Inspector, in not getting on with working out the necessary assessments if the river route were accepted, and particularly because the Suffolk and Norfolk River Board was not informed about the importance of the river route two or three years earlier so that it could do soundings of water levels, and so on,


to discover whether that route would be appropriate. It was not until the last days of September of this year, more than a year after the inquiry was held, that my right hon. Friend was able to announce that the river route line had been chosen.
During the year since the inquiry I have, both officially and unofficially, pressed the matter with Ministers concerned. I had always been given to understand that as soon as the line was fixed, and the Minister had announced it, construction would start in 1972, and I had assumed, not unnaturally, that that would be in the spring of 1972. After all, that would be 18 months from the time of the inquiry.
As I said earlier, the previous Minister of Transport was, I think, in grave fault in allowing this scheme for Claydon to be put forward, but what I want to stress is the fact that there are great traffic difficulties in Stowmarket and Needham Market and there is tremendous resentment because the scheme for Claydon put back the solving of these difficulties and made the inquiry last for so long.
I should like to know whether my right hon. Friend has reactivated the whole of the Eastern Construction Unit at Bedford, and whether there is someone in authority there who understands modern construction methods and the kind of roads that we need in this industrial age. I should like to quote a classic bad example of what was done a little further along the A45 towards Bury St. Edmunds. A few years ago a bypass with many bends was constructed round the village of Woolpit, and because they did not provide a dual carriageway one often has difficulty in passing a slow moving heavy lorry.
That is the past. Time slips by and I am enough of a realist to know that what has happened cannot be rectified. What we want to know is when the road will be finished. The situation is made all the worse for the local people by the fine and rapid development of the Felixstowe Docks and the new container lorries, both foreign and British, which go along the A45 carrying goods to the, and from the, Felixstowe Docks. The docks are to double their tonnage from 2,500,000 to 5 million by the end of 1973.
The Minister, I am glad to say, visited the docks a few months ago and announced Government aid for about half the extension, so that £4 million will be granted for this scheme. But will the road be finished by the time of the expansion of the docks? That is not all. After 1973, if the tonnage demands it, as is likely, there are plans for even further extensions.
I return to the hub of the question, which is the town of Stowmarket. The A45 through Stowmarket is so narrow that if two container lorries face each other to pass, one has to mount the pavement, at the risk of the lives of pedestrians. There have been accidents and property has been damaged. One is constantly reading newspaper reports to that effect. One example is when in early September of this year a man who had put up a new shop blind and plate glass window had his money wasted because a lorry with an overhanging load mounted the pavement and smashed it all.
I have been in touch with the Stowmarket U.D.C. which complains that the weight of traffic is breaking up the surface of the existing carriageway in Stowmarket. The unevenness of the road is deplorable and there are constant complaints about it. Regular requests for remedial work are, naturally, forwarded to the county council, but no amount of maintenance work will overcome the problem. The very uneven surface of the carriageway is dangerous to pedestrians when they are crossing a road. It is dangerous to road users generally and it constitutes a major hazard to cyclists and motor-cyclists.
When a road is badly pitted, water collects at the kerbside in wet weather and cannot drain away properly. In winter months standing water freezes, as we know, and this makes for an additional hazard to pedestrians and vehicles. Pedestrians are further inconvenienced when using the pavements in wet weather because filthy water and slush collect in the roadway and vehicles cannot avoid spraying people on the footways in narrow sections of the streets.
I should like my hon. Friend to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for the Environment to the dust, dirt and noise which are created by heavy traffic and which are rapidly destroying the


environment and amenities in the conservation area which covers the centres of Stowmarket and Needham Market.
Stowmarket Council does not underestimate the problems of land acquisition in a scheme of this size, but it is felt that the district valuer should be requested to make as early a start as possible on the negotiations for the purchase of the northern section of the road through Stowmarket and the south of Needham Market where there are no great problems with the new selected line.
I could give the Parliamentary Secretary letters from doctors about how this is affecting the health of people living on this route, so close to the traffic in these narrow streets. If they do their houses up, all their clean new paintwork soon looks as though it had been up for years because of the dirt that is thrown at it.
I have received a copy today of a telegram sent by the chambers of trade of Stowmarket and Needham Market to the Minister for Transport Industries, urging him to use every endeavour to get on with this bypass. This is what the local people, putting it very mildly—they express it in far stronger language to me—say has been happening. I give this Government the fullest marks, compared with the sleepiness of the Labour Government, for recognising the importance of a west-east road like the A45 in particular for our whole new economic development.
What is also worrying us—although we are pleased to see this—is that schemes are now going ahead for bypasses around Cambridge, Newmarket and Bury St. Edmunds, whereas, in the late fifties or early sixties, they were never thought of as being necessary compared with Stowmarket. Now, we seem to be behind all the others. What has gone wrong in the Ministry that our place has been usurped by these others? Nothing less than a crash programme is required for this bypass if we are not to have crashes in these towns and villages. I am certain that, if it were an operation of war, it could be done very quickly.
There are now very nasty rumours around in the county that no start will be made until 1973. I hope that the Minister will deny this and say that a

start will be made next year, as we have all been led to expect. There may be delay in getting some of the designs out in his own Department or at Bedford. Let them not be behind those for these other bypasses. I am sure that, if his Department cannot get out these designs for bridges and so on, our East Suffolk County Council would be delighted to help out.
It is also important to know what type of contract this will be. Will it be for completion within one year—that is what I would like to see—or a year and a half? Either of these will be at a fixed price. But might it drift on for two years? That would mean that prices were adjusted to cost a lot more. I hope that that does not happen.
Tomorrow, we start our final debate on whether we are to enter the Common Market. If we are, no part of England is better situated than East Anglia and the hinterland of Felixstowe for the increased export of our goods to the Six. If we go in, as I said, I am sure that Felixstowe will expand its tonnage beyond 5 million.
Much of the increase of this traffic will be in these long container lorries. I was delighted to see that my right hon. Friend said the other day that he wants to keep these containers more on the main roads. This is important, because they are so slowed up through Stowmarket that many of them are taking the short cut across B and C roads, to the detriment of other villages.
A bypass round Trimley and Felixstowe is now being built straight down to the docks. I recall going to the Ministry with my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton)—we did not get much response at that time—to point out that the A45 from Ipswich to Felixstowe should be made a trunk road so as to bring it under the Ministry of Transport. This has been done and we welcome it, but what will be the position of Ipswich when this bypass is built, within one and a half miles of its outskirts on the west and before the Felixstowe section starts in the east?
At present these big vehicles are going into the town of Ipswich, along Norwich Road, practically into the centre of the town, turning into Valley Road, which is no more than a relief road, although it


is called the Ipswich Bypass. That is a misnomer. It is not even dual carriageway for the greater part of its length and already it is the cause of tremendous blockages and delays.
Nobody is doing more than my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money), who deplores that through illness he is unable to be here to support me tonight, in his energy and enthusiasm to get something done about this problem. I hope the Minister will bear in mind what he and I have been saying—that we should not, by building one by-pass, cause a worse jam elsewhere.
Much delay happened under the Labour Government. The Conservative Government have recognised the need for this road, from the west to the east, particularly to cope with container lorries. The present state of affairs is having a terrible effect on people's lives and calls for urgent action and an immediate programme.
We feel strongly that we have been pushed to the bottom of the queue. How or why we do not know. Other bypasses have gone ahead and we have been left behind. Many people are suffering from this traffic congestion. It is vital, in the interests of the economic life of the country as well as to alleviate their suffering, that all possible efforts are made to see that the bypass of which I have spoken is started quickly and brought into use equally quickly.

9.8 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I wish at the outset to thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) for the courteous way in which he has taken the trouble to appraise me personally of this problem and of his views about it, not only tonight but on earlier occasions.
I am sure that he will accept my general assurance that as one of the Ministers responsible for the road programme, I am immensely sympathetic to the difficulties which confront all people who are faced with traffic congestion, the weight of growing traffic and the increased size of lorries near their doorsteps.
This is one of the reasons why we are giving great consideration to this matter

and why we announced in our major road programme for the next decade measures for relieving traffic congestion in historic towns as well as our awareness of the need to ensure first-class highways to all ports in this country.
In general terms, therefore, I am extremely sympathetic to the plea made by my hon. and gallant Friend, though it is a plea which regrettably is made from one end of the country to the other. There are endless examples of congestion of one sort or another. It is our detemination to do everything we can as soon as possible to eliminate them.
I welcome the opportunity which my hon. and gallant Friend has given me in this short debate to tell a simple story which illustrates the time that is spent in thoroughly assessing the road proposals published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and the sort of flexibility which is necessary—though it is essential, within that flexibility, that a certain amount of time is involved if we are seriously to consider the outcome of the consultations that take place.
The plans for the A45 to bypass Stow-market and Needham Market are part now of the major improvement of the A45 trunk road between the Midlands and the East Coast, and we published them as part of our proposals for the decade in my right hon. Friend's announcement on 23rd June. There is not the slightest doubt that one of the reasons which influenced us in the context of this road, the A45, was our clear awareness of the growing container traffic which now, on an ever increasing scale, goes back and forth to Felixstowe.
Concentrating on the lengths on which congestion is worst, we are now progressing schemes as urgently as possible for bypassing not only Stowmarket, Needham Market and Claydon but also Bury St. Edmunds, Newmarket and Cambridge, which means that not only is my hon. and gallant Friend's constituency involved but also the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) and for Ipswich (Mr. Money).
The specific question of the bypass for Ipswich must wait till we have in


our possession the current Land Use Transportation Study for that area, which will enable us to make progress there.
It may be helpful, though not, I regret, as helpful as my hon. and gallant Friend would wish, if, before coming to the immediate questions which he has raised, I give the dates which we envisage for the construction of the A45 bypasses. It is estimated that the bypass for Bury St. Edmunds will start in the spring of 1972, with a completion date some two years later, in the spring of 1974. It is expected that the Newmarket bypass will start in the summer of 1973, also with a two-year contract period, taking us to the summer of 1975. The Cambridge northern bypass is estimated to start early in 1974, with a two-year period up to early 1976. The Stowmarket bypass is scheduled to start in the spring of 1973, with a contract period running into 1975 or 1976.
My hon. and gallant Friend will know that Stowmarket, Needham Market and Claydon are to be bypassed together, with a continuous 9½ mile length of new trunk road. The history of this set of proposals has been well rehearsed and is very familiar to my hon. and gallant Friend. They were published at the end of February, 1970, as draft Orders, with the purpose of determining the route for this road and the manner in which the side roads associated with it would be affected. Undoubtedly, my hon. and gallant Friend has cause to point out that that was a long time ago. However, as he told us, the initial proposals attracted a great deal of public interest and no small measure of public criticism.
There was a large volume of objection, particularly from the people of Claydon. These objections stemmed from our proposal to route the road, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, on an embankment through part of the western edge of the village of Claydon, which at that time seemed the best way of relieving the village main street without impinging on the nearby River Gipping.
When the three months for the lodging of objections ended, that is, by 27th May, 1970, each objection was carefully assessed. Visits were made to some objectors with a view to explaining the proposals more fully, and letters were sent to others clarifying points which they

had made to us. A public meeting was held at Claydon attended by about 300 local residents, at which the scheme could be explained in full detail.
It is worth making the point that it did not seem appropriate at that time to split this 9½-mile section; it held together, and there seemed no convenient way in which it could be built in parts.
Having considered the number and weight of objections, my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Transport decided that there should be a public inquiry at which the matter could be fully discussed. My hon. and gallant Friend was kind enough to say that perhaps there is not so much responsibility on my right hon. Friend as would have been the case if this had been a responsibility of the present Government for a longer period, and I do not think that he would wish me to add to the comments which he made about the change of Government.
The decision to hold the public inquiry was announced on 15th July and a date at the beginning of September, 1970 was fixed.
It was no small task to prepare for the inquiry. A number of alternative routes had by then been suggested by objectors to the draft Orders. Each of the routes had to be evaluated, and those affected by them had to be notified. As a result, about 2,000 people were involved, in that they had either objected to the Minister's original proposals or were affected in one way or another by one of the alternative routes put forward subsequently.
The public inquiry opened on 8th September and lasted for two weeks. It was conducted, as is the normal practice, by an independent inspector. Much evidence and counter-evidence suggested the continuation of one route or another and the adoption of alternative routes—whatever commended itself to individual objectors.
In his report at the end of last October, the inspector recommended that my right hon. Friend should confirm the route by passing Stowmarket and Needham Market, but that he should modify the route near Claydon to incorporate an alternative, known as the river route, put forward by the East Suffolk County Council with considerable local support. The river route, as its name implies,


would take the road closer to the river—in fact, it would involve a small diversion of the river—to take the heavy traffic further from the main part of the village, at a cost that is not so heavy as was estimated in our original calculations.
However, the river route had attracted a certain amount of criticism at the public inquiry. It affected businesses and other properties not affected by the initial consultation and the initial routes that were published. My right hon. Friend therefore very properly took the view that persons so affected by the new proposals, as opposed to the old proposals, which by then had been thoroughly ventilated, should have a further opportunity to put their views to him before he reached a decision.
The inspector's report was therefore published on 26th February this year, and each person directly affected by the river route was individually asked for his or her comments on the inspector's recommendation. There was a Press announcement and a request for any comments which others not directly affected might want to make. The statutory bodies involved, the local authorities and the Government Departments, were also consulted. As the river route necessitates a diversion of the River Gipping, the East Suffolk and Norfolk River Authority in particular was consulted. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that that was an essential step in view of the danger of increasing the already present risk of flooding in the Gipping Valley.
The River Authority then had to carry out an exhaustive survey of possible flood levels which might result from the roadworks, and at our requests calculated an acceptable design for the waterways through the bridges to overcome any possibility of damage to land and properties. It was an intricate task, taking several months, and it was only in September that the River Authority was able to give its final favourable answer. There has been no delay since that conclusion was reached.
Having already carefully assessed the reactions to the inspector's report, my right hon. Friend decided to accept the recommendation, and on 24th September his decisions were conveyed to those concerned and announced in the Press. But

unfortunately, because the route has been changed, a considerable amount of the preliminary engineering design work has had to be revised. The bypass had been designed as one continuous whole, without there being any point at which it would have been practicable to divide the northern, Stowmarket and Needham Market, part from its southern continuation near Claydon. Nor are the engineering reassessments confined to the river route as an alteration to one part has repercussion on adjacent lengths.
The design of the bridges and earthworks on new highways must take account of the precise soil conditions in the area directly affected. In this connection, it is worth mentioning that the original soil survey on the Order proposals revealed that further data on subsoil strata, particularly at the northern end of the route, would be required before constructional details could be finalised.
It would have been inappropriate for us to have carried out a soil survey on the river route or a supplementary survey on the northern part of the scheme before a final decision was made. I can understand my hon. and gallant Friend saying, "But as there was difficulty, through public protests and alternatives being considered, would it not have been possible to have done a lot of exploratory work before final decisions were taken?" If one were looking at one scheme in isolation—if, for example, one were looking at wartime needs, where total need to achieve results at any cost was acceptable—I could understand that argument, but my Department is involved in some 2,000 road schemes, most of which are in some way or other the subject of objections. If we were to spend a great deal of time examining and working out detailed costs of all the alternatives before decisions were made, this would have a major effect on the speed of the road programme. That would be counter-productive to my hon. and gallant Friend's eloquent plea that we should get on with the job.
I was referring to the need for the additional soil survey required because of the change of route. The report on soil conditions is due to be received from our contractor at the end of this year. As soon as this information is available, the bridge and earthwork designs can be


finalised. This is a big job and I am afraid that the Department will not, therefore, be in a position to invite tenders for construction of the bypass before the end of 1972. I am glad to be able to confirm that the target starting date for the bypass is the spring of 1973. It will be a two or three-year contract. The form of the contract must be dependent upon the results of the soil investigation, and if the contract is in excess of two years, price variation provisions will apply. It is fair to point out, so that we may allay any anxieties of his constituents, that this is a trunk road and that the cost is borne not by the local authorities but by the national Exchequer.
My hon. and gallant Friend used the word "delay" in connection with the building of this new road. I could not deny that the processes through which we go must involve delay. I ask him, however, to be assured that the delay is part of the process not only of building a road but of ensuring that the best public interest is served. It may well be that a different route should have been published in the first place. In the way of things it is reasonable to expect that we shall not get every route right first time, but, given that we do get one wrong, it is better that we should be flexible enough to start again in order to meet the legitimate anxieties of constituents of hon. Members and not go, simply for the sake of speed, blindly ahead with the original route we had chosen.

Sir H. Harrison: I would like a little clarification. My hon. Friend says that it may be a year before this goes out to tender. The Department is getting these soil surveys. When he comes to look at these and at the planning in more detail In the next few months, will he consider whether the work could not be done within a two-year contract rather than that it should spread over three years? This would give great assurance to many of my constituents.

Mr. Heseltine: I assure my hon. and gallant Friend, having had all the delays involved in the scheme, justifiable as they are, that, when we get down to the business of building the road, we shall try to see whether it is possible to make up time. I give him that assurance. Without in any way committing the Department on the outcome of my right hon. Friend's

decision, I will ensure that we look carefully to see whether there are ways in which we can come within the two-year contract period.
This has been a particularly interesting debate because it has thrown up some of the problems we are confronted with and, I hope, the sympathetic way in which we try to overcome them. It has also been interesting because it has reflected public interest in one of the main roads we have highlighted as part of our national policy and one in which a great deal of environmental protection will ensue from the work we have in mind.

2½p COIN

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I am glad to have this unexpected opportunity to raise the subject of the 2½p coin. I make no apology for raising it. I know that I have been persistent, so far as the Minister of State is concerned to the point of annoyance, although he has been ever courteous and has assisted wherever possible. I do not wish to retain the 2½p coin for retention's sake. Although I may from time to time forget and call it a sixpence, it should be remembered that this is now officially renamed the 2½p coin, and any similarity between the 2½p coin and the sixpence is purely coincidental.
I do not want to take this opportunity to discuss the entire new decimal currency system. This is not the time to do so, and, in spite of the teething troubles, it has not worked out as badly as some people thought. There is obviously room for some changes and these can be made under the legislation. At some time the House may wish to press on my right hon. Friend the necessity to put into public circulation a coin between the l0p and 50p, namely a 25p coin. This will reduce the weight of coins in our pockets. A good opportunity for the first issue would be the commemoration of a certain royal silver wedding in two years' time.
I want to discuss the future of the 2½p coin and its dual contribution to a reduction in the cost of living and to aid our general convenience. The joint stock banks and the food shops in particular are not using the coin. Any hon. Gentleman who looks in his pocket or any hon. Lady who looks in her purse will not


find many 2½p coins. I can claim to have some, because I go out of my way to ask for them. Someone had first to sow the seeds before we could reap this harvest. The seeds were sown by the unlamented Decimal Currency Board. In issue No. 21 of its newsletter, published some while ago, it said:
The decimal bronze coins are the only new coins to appear on D-day. They will replace "—
these are the significant words—
the low value £.s.d. coins (the penny, threepenny bit and sixpence).
In a large footnote headed: "Ordering for D-day "the same issue went on to say:

"Shopkeepers should order now what they will want, but they do not need to draw the coins all at one time. Some will be needed a month or so before D-day for final staff training and can then be used in tills on D-day. More will be needed from the banks before their shut down on 11th and 12th February, 1971; and more can be drawn on after D-day as unwanted 1d., 3d. and 6d. coins are paid in.
From the start the Board was doing its best to kill the sixpence. It printed vast quantities of something called "Your guide to Decimal Currency". Much of the stuff of this book was left as publisher's remainders like, I trust the memoirs of the Leader of the Opposition, because the postal strike prevented its distribution. I was fortunate enough to see an advance copy of this guide. It made exactly the same point about the sixpence being an unwanted coin and not being used in the new system.
I was told when I took this up with the Treasury that had it seen this before it was printed it might have wished to make one or two changes. As it was, far too many of the print had been ordered and run through the printers, so it was too late. I accept that, but had the Treasury been consulted it would have made the point about the retention of the sixpence for the period which was then under review.
The Board still was not satisfied. In Issue No. 22 it stated:
New bags will help.
It was talking about bagging up silver.
That leaves the 6d., 1s. and 2s. coins. The 6d. will be wanted for £.s.d. shops and using red bag for £5 lots will help segregate it.

This meant segregate, siphon off, and use only in the £.s.d. shops.
On 13th January, 1971, London Transport sounded the alarm. In a Press statement its Chairman, Sir Richard Way, stated:
We said that 6d. steps in the scale of fares were practicable only as long as the 6d. piece continued in widespread general use after decimalisation. There would be serious operational difficulties, particularly on the buses, if the number of sixpences in people's pockets or purses declined to such an extent that change-giving became difficult and time consuming … Any floats, however large, would soon disappear.
London Transport laid in a float of £¾ million in sixpences.
We also stressed that if the difficulties became great London Transport would have to consider seeking approval … for fare changes … probably involving the use of only whole new pennies … I repeat what we said long ago … about the real life expectancy of the sixpence—and by that I mean the time during which it is circulating freely. … The Decimal Currency Board has expressed the view that the sixpence will quickly decline in popularity.
Of course—because it had already decided to be its judge and executioner and was bitterly disappointed when the Government reversed its decision.
If shops bank all the sixpences they get, and do not give them as change for re-circulation … If the shops do not give sixpenny coins in change, then the sixpence could disappear, perhaps within weeks.
D-Day was in February. We are today in October and many of the sixpences have disappeared. The decline has occurred.
I place primary responsibility on the banks. I want to read extracts from two letters I have received from people in different parts of the country. Someone wrote to me in these terms on 7th August, 1971:
Ever since decimalisation I have asked for the 2½p in the bank when drawing money, but on the last occasion I was told there were 'none available'.
Over 1,500 million of this coin were minted in the reign of Her Majesty alone. Several hundred million were minted going back a long time, even to 1948 when the coin ceased to have anything in it other than cupro-nickel.
The second letter, which is dated 28th July, is even more significant:
After being informed on a number of occasions at my bank that no sixpences were


available, I questioned the counter assistant of this branch and was told he never kept any stocks … despite the fact that sixpences are supposed to be available on demand. When I wrote to the manager requesting him either to confirm this or have stocks available in future, no attempt was made to deny the lack of supply (which was put down to a lack of demand).
That is Tweedledum and Tweedledee nonsense. The writer goes on:
I was ludicrously offered a private supply if I let the branch know my future requirements of sixpences each week.
The joint stock banks of this country surely do not expect each individual customer to give notice of the private supply which he wants each week. I thought the banks were there to suit our convenience and to deal with their customers' needs and not to continue some mystical banking system to suit themselves.
Continuing to look at the situation, one will notice that if, for example, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you go to a bank and cash a cheque and ask, let us say, for £11, £10 in notes and £1 in mixed silver, you will not find a sixpence in the mixed silver. I shall come on to the question why in a moment, but it is a fact that if you ask for a bag of mixed silver no sixpence will ever appear in it. If, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you ask specifically for 2½p coins they are not taken from the normal place in the till. The bank teller will take out a little brown envelope, which has already been opened, take off a paper clip, pour the things out on to the counter in front of you and give them to you. If you are less lucky the bank teller will go along to the next counter point, reach underneath and bring out a little dirty bag, rip it open—with, I think, a feeling of annoyance—come back and give you what is, in effect, a private supply of 2½p coins which his colleague has been keeping. I should have thought that in this age of the computer the banks could behave a little more modernly and try to help their customers.
What happens if a customer wishes to pay into the bank a sum of money including a 2½p coin and a ½p coin, making, I am sure the House will accept, a total of 3p, a round figure which, to every member of the public, certainly every Member of this House, is common sense? I have to tell that the customer's offer to credit his account will be rejected by

the bank. It will accept a 2½p coin or a ½p. coin only if one has them in pairs—Tweedledum and Tweedledee again. I repeat that a 2½p coin and a ½p coin making a toal of 3p does not mean that to the bank. It means something entirely different. The only bank which will accept 3p in this form, I say to its credit, is the National Savings Bank run by the Post Office, but it is not able to do every banking transaction and it is not, therefore, as useful as it might otherwise be.
I think this last example, about the addition of 2½p and ½p to make 3p being disregarded by banks, shows that banks are the real villains of the story. They are, in my submission, behaving both anti-socially and irresponsibly, because they decided that the sixpence would not be reprieved. I do not blame them because the Decimal Currency Board told them, "Do not worry: the sixpence will not be reprieved". The Government asked the Decimal Currency Board to carry out a survey and report on whether the sixpence should be reprieved, and if one reads what I can only describe as that work of fiction it did the reverse of what the detective story does. It started off by concluding that the sixpence should not be kept and then tried to pluck out of the air evidence to substantiate that point of view. I am glad to say the Government disregarded it. The banks, because they had been told that the sixpence would not be reprieved, decided to ignore the reprieve and made no provision for the training of tellers or for space in counter tills, and that is their position still.
This gives rise to problems in shops, in parking cars and in a limited number of gas meters, and so on. Many shops, for whatever reason, tend now to make their price increase in whole pennies. They recognise that many people find the little ½p. a useful but desperately small coin which disappears through the slightest chink in the bottom of one's pocket and which it is not worth while cutting a hole in the lining to rescue.
The recent increase in the price of bread was of ½p in many places, and this is the equivalent of the old 2½d. I can imagine the outcry there would have been before D-Day had the price of a loaf of bread gone up by 2½d. I can imagine the gnashing of teeth and the moaning of


the Labour Party who, incidentally, do not appear to be interested in items which might reduce the cost of living. There is no political mileage for them there, so they go home and do not take a real interest either in the needs of the housewife or of anyone else.
What about the problems the disappearance of the 2½p is causing to the motorist? In May, 1971, according to the bulletin issued by the R.A.C., the Chairman of the R.A.C., Mr. Wilfrid Andrews, was assured by the Treasury that—
supplies of sixpences will not be allowed to become inadequate to meet public demand.
I am sure that that was an assurance given in good faith by the Treasury. The Treasury, however, has not followed this through as well as it might. The bulletin went on to say:
An R.A.C. spokesman has urged the public not to be brainwashed by statements of the Decimal Currency Board and the banks suggesting that sixpences are no longer being used. The motoring public must continually get sixpences from banks to ensure the coins will always be available to pay parking meter charges where necessary. This will maintain supply.
But, as I said earlier, the Treasury assured Mr. Andrews that supplies of sixpences "will not be allowed"—that is the key phrase—to become inadequate.
The Government have said that they will decide the future of the 2½p coin in 1973. The problem that will arise if we wait until then is that by the strangling and smothering approach of the banks and some of the shopkeepers, the sixpence will disappear and will become almost a curio, except for some which may appear when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces his decision on whether we are to have a souvenir issue of sterling coins. If he decides to do so, that will pump a vast quantity into the hands of the public, but the general circulation will dry up by collusion between banks and some traders long before 1973.
I have received widespread support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have had letters from all over the United Kingdom, and that really does mean England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. I have had good support in at least three national newspapers, the Sunday Telegraph, the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Chapman), in putting down an Amendment to my Early Day Motion, made the point that he considered the situation might be eased by withdrawing the 2p in favour of the 2½p. I am not necessarily in favour of this, but it is a point of view. However, it does not detract from the necessity of making quite certain that the 2½p coin is kept in permanent circulation.
When the original request to keep the 6d.—now the 2½p—coin was first made it was strongly supported by the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and a horde of representative associations of all kinds. Today, the latest of the consumer bodies, the Consumer Union, comes out strongly in favour of the retention and widespread circulation of the 2½p coin. Indeed, I have had a warm and friendly letter from one of the more militant left-wing trade union branches thanking me for what I am doing and saying that it had instucted its branch members each to draw sixpences from the Post Office and circulate them. One sometimes has strange allies, but all are welcome in this battle.
I referred earlier to the statement by Sir Richard Way, Chairman of London Transport Executive, that if the sixpence went out of widespread circulation London Transport would have problems. I would point out that in July this year London Transport issued this leaflet:
Your new bus fare: the acute shortage of sixpenny coins has meant extra change-giving and consequent serious delays to you. Now all fares on split entrance one-man buses are to be in whole new pennies.
So that within seven months of D-day, because London Transport could not get enough sixpences in general circulation it has been forced to put up its fares and to get rid of the 2½p unit. This adds another twist to rising prices.
I have already mentioned that the last round of bread increases was in whole penny units. This is hard on the pensioner and those on low wages. If the ½p had been more sensibly sized, I believe it would have been more widely popularised, but none the less it is there and is being used. However, if the 2½p were in free circulation, this in itself would substantially ease the problem. It is easier for change-giving and much easier to


understand. On many items change could be handed back in 2½p coins, which would reduce the weight of copper in one's pocket, and the coin would be more familiar to a large number of people. As I have said, since 1953 over 1,500 million of the coins were minted.
It may be argued that there is no place permanently for a 2½p coin in our decimal currency system, but in many countries with long-established decimal currency systems there is a place for both the ½p and the 2½p. I have in mind the fact that the 2½p coin or its equivalent, the 2·50 piece, circulates in Ghana, Spain, Portugal, Holland, and many other countries. Why cannot it do the same here?
I suggest that there are two needs. The first is a clear Government statement of intent. The second is the implementation of the assurance given to the R.A.C., which I am sure was given in good faith, possibly by a Treasury official, but which may not have been seen or underwritten by a Treasury Minister, to make sure that supplies are not allowed to become inadequate.
The Government could play their part in two ways. They could insist that wherever they have coinage transactions—every Government Department and Government agency pays out money, in many cases in cash—they should use the 2½p coin and make certain that it was issued. Secondly, banks should be asked by means of a letter from the Bank of England or the Treasury to issue this coin more freely and not hold private supplies for customers or withhold it from mixed bags of silver. It should be issued freely.
I pay tribute again to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I have pressed him over and over again in Questions and in correspondence, as I said. It is not unfair to him to say that, before he reached his exalted position, he was known as a supporter of the sixpence. I do not think that I shall appeal to him in vain to make a dash for freedom, to shake himself clear of some of his Treasury advisers, and to say that the Government have decided that the 2½p coin is to remain a permanent feature of our currency. If he does this, he will be widely acclaimed. More than that, who knows, perhaps like that great aid to road safety, the beacon which was named after its inventor, Leslie Hore-

Belisha, the humble "tanner" might be renamed the "Terry".

9.47 p.m.

Miss Joan Hall: I am very pleased to be called immediately after listening to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), because I have great admiration for the persistence that he has shown in pressing for the retention of the 2½p coin, which I prefer to call the "tanner", though I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned it at the end of his speech.
The "tanner" has largely disappeared from our shops, where most peoples' currency exchanges occur. In view of that, there are three questions which I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State. First, why has it disappeared? Secondly, how has it disappeared? Thirdly, who sanctioned its disappearance?
I do not know whether the Government are aware that it is no longer easy or even practicable to shop with a "tanner". It is probable that someone, somewhere, decided that 2½ was a very untidy sum, that it did not conform to the unfortunately growing movement towards metrication, and that it was only to be allowed to continue in circulation for a very limited time.
I appreciate that many right hon. and hon. Members, especially Ministers, who do not shop regularly every day do not realise the problems of people, especially the elderly and the housewives, who have to go into a shop with a purse. One opens it up, only to find a conglomeration of coins. The one which is easiest to pick out is the 10p coin. When one comes to the dark brown and rather dirty ones, it is very difficult to pick out the 2p, the 1p and the ½p.
If by any miracle, as it now happens to be, one gets a "tanner", it is easy to see and helps considerably when shopping. I would not make a plea for the retention of something which I did not feel had value. I believe that the "tanner" is of value because it is known and understood.
I disagree slightly with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead when he says that decimalisation has settled in fairly easily. I think that initially it did, but when I go shopping I find more and more that I am told the price in shillings and old pennies rather than in new pence. The


"tanner" is useful because one can see it easily. I presume that gentlemen, when they put their hands in their pockets, can feel the "tanner" easily. The most outstanding reason for having the "tanner" is that it is wanted by people.
I also add a plea on the cost of living. When I meet and talk to people I find that the cost of living is a question of dynamic nature. I fear that if we lose the "tanner" we shall very quickly lose the ½p because, as my hon. Friend said, it is very small and unpopular. I see this going next. All this adds up to an increase in the cost of living. Anything which we can do to halt the rise in the cost of living is of vital importance. But, most of all, I believe that we should have the "tanner" because people want it.
I ask the Minister to tell us why it has disappeared, how it has disappeared, and who has sanctioned its disappearance.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Robert Redmond: I am pleased to take part in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) has a bee in his bonnet about the humble "tanner" just as I have a bee in my bonnet about metrication. We are really rather cross that the great British public is being bewitched, bothered and bewildered by both movements. I have maintained in this House that the Metrication Board is performing a confidence trick on the public and I think that the Decimal Currency Board has performed a confidence trick.
The problem of the sixpence or "tanner", if I may call it that, because it should be called 2½p now, is not isolated. It is a symptom of a much wider malaise caused by the decimal currency system which has been wished upon us by the last Government. If we can talk about the "tanner" in isolation, the cause for its disappearance is the size, shape and make-up of the inside of the cash register drawer in most shops. I am not a shopkeeper and I am not familiar with the inside of a cash register, but shopkeeper friends have told me that there is no space in the till which allows the "tanner" to fit in easily.
I have tried to work this out. With the old currency we had the half-crown, the

two-shilling piece, the shilling, the sixpence, the penny, the halfpenny and the threepenny piece making seven different coins. Now we have the 50p, 10p, 5p, 2p, 1p and ½p, making six different coins. There seems to be one over somehow where the "tanner" could fit in, but shopkeepers tell me that it cannot be done. I believe that what they are saying is true because so many have said this to me.
My hon. Friend has said that the banks do not keep the "tanner" in the till. Is it for the same reason? If so, then the problem is not just simply getting the banks to stock the "tanner". It may not be possible for them physically to do so without great expense.
I do not think that the Government can do very much about this, because they cannot do the impossible. The Government must look at the whole currency system to see whether we can get at the root of the disease, rather than tinker with the symptoms. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall) when she says that decimal currency got going quite well to begin with but that many people are now confused.
Because of what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has called the decimal diddle, people are now converting back to the old currency. The honorary secretary of Bolton Chamber of Trade told me the other day that whereas he had been putting out the propaganda, through his members, that people should be encouraged to think decimal, everybody is now being advised to convert back to the old currency to prove that the decimal diddle does not exist.
The fact is that our coinage is confusing many people. Elderly people find themselves with pockets and handbags full of loose change. They go to the bank, or to the Post Office, and ask for the money to be converted back to notes. They then go to the shops, produce their pound notes and get change which they are not able to count because of the confusion which has arisen due to unfamiliarity with the currency, which is now made up of funny bits and pieces which they do not understand.
This is not the fault of the disappearing "tanner" but that of the coinage itself, its size and its distribution, and I ask


my hon. Friend to consider the problem in the wider term, rather than to isolate consideration of the problem to the "tanner", because somehow or other the new currency is fitting into the adage of "better means worse". I do not think that it is the fault of the banks that the 2½p piece or the "tanner", is not accepted. The point is that half is a vulgar fraction, and we are supposed to be dealing with decimal fractions.
I am not a backwoodsman. I have always advocated a decimal currency for this country, but not this one. This is what is wrong. I realised what was happening the moment this currency was suggested in the first place by the Royal Commission. At a meeting that I attended of the C.B.I. regional council I repeated a story which I remembered very well from my days as a young officer in the Army, about to go to Egypt for the first time. An old colonel who had spent a lot of time in Egypt said to me, "Be careful when you get there. You will find that the cost of living is enormously high. Your pocket money disappears in no time at all because a piastre is one one-hundredth of a pound and you are inclined to think of it as a penny. You start spending piastres thinking they are each worth a penny, but every time you spend a piastre you spend 2½d.". That is what is happening with our currency. The whole thing is wrong. The disappearing "tanner" is a symptom of a great malaise about which I hope the Government can do something.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I am sure that many people would wish to commend the worthy motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) in raising this matter in the House today and also in the campaign that he has been waging generally to protect the consumer. However, I cannot find myself in entire agreement with him on the narrow base on which he has placed his argument tonight. I believe that to talk in terms of defence of the 2½p coin as being a dash for freedom is going too far.
I believe, too, that my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall) and Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) have extended the argument more widely than they should have done. All those taking part in this debate need to do

so with circumspection because, if we are talking about a decimal currency system, we should recall that it was when you, Mr. Speaker, were Chancellor of the Exchequer that a decision was taken in principle to decimalise, although what happened subsequently was based upon a recommendation of a committee, which was endorsed by the last Labour Government.
We ought not to conduct the argument in terms of anti-decimalisation, and I think that—

Mr. Redmond: I do not want it to be thought that I am trying to go back to the old £.s.d. system. I am merely criticising this decimal system and saying that what we have in the tanner is a symptom of a great malaise.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Mr. Haselhurst: I am pleased to have given my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) an opportunity to set the record straight. I did not try to point too much criticism in his direction. I was about to add that I believe that the system of decimal currency recommended by the Halsbury Committee and endorsed by the Labour Government was the wrong system. That is what has given rise to many of the ills mentioned tonight.
However, I do not go on to say that all the ills could be solved by the injection back into the system of the 2½p coin. While I greatly sympathise with the shopper whom my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley mentioned, particularly the elderly person, struggling with the new coins in her purse, that is no argument for the retention of the 2½p piece. It is an argument about lack of familiarity with the system, particularly among elderly people. There are many other people in the community who do not have difficulty understanding the system.
There are arguments to be made about the effect of the new system on rising prices and inflation. These arguments may be right, but they are not overcome by saying that things would have been different if only we had had the 2½p


coin in wider circulation, or that things will be different in future if it comes back into wider circulation.
The battle for the 2½p coin is almost effectively lost. Following the copious advice and advertisements of the Decimal Currency Board, people made a serious effort to adapt to the new system. They accepted it on the basis of the new coins and, therefore, whatever assurances were given and however genuine the assurances, they never accepted that the 2½p coin, or the old sixpence, would be part of the new system. In helping themselves to change to the new system they dismissed the sixpenny piece from their minds.
We ought not to criticise them too much for it. The British public were showing that good practical sense of which they give many demonstrations and saying, "This is the system; it may not be the best, but we will make the best of it." That is what they set out to do, and in so doing they relegated the sixpence or the 2½p coin from their reckoning. I do not dismiss his particular examples, but my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead drew an untrue picture when he cast the banks and other agencies as the real villains of the piece.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I quoted merely two examples. I could have quoted 17 or 18 from different parts of the country. The practice is far too common for these to be coincidences. The banks are pursuing a deliberate policy.

Mr. Haselhurst: I will not attempt to rebut the assertion that there have been attempts in certain quarters to withdraw the coin, but that does not tell the whole story. My father is in the retail trade and I know that it is a matter of practical convenience.
When we were changing to the new system, as a retailer my father made an effort to work the new system, having got a supply of the new coins. It was certainly no plot, but simply a matter of practical convenience for everybody when the new system was coming in. The battle is lost, for many retailers, small and large, were prepared to play in with the new system and, therefore, deliberately perhaps, but not with evil

intent, they tended to reject the 2½p piece from their change-giving.
The other reason why the battle is almost lost is that so many machines have been altered. I would have rejoiced if the system had been different and the 2½p coin still existed as a 5p coin in a 10s unit system. This would have made a lot of sense and many machines need not have been altered. But because we were committed to this system and a good deal of money was spent on financing the changeover, many machines have been altered.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I hesitate to interrupt the eloquent flow of my hon. Friend's language, but since we have the 2p coin and the ½p coin, why is it totally impossible to have a 2½p coin?

Mr. Haselhurst: I would not say that adjustments to the system are not possible, but an argument in favour of a particular coin which no longer fits certain types of machines, although that point might have been good before we had gone all this way, does not hold the same validity today. The die is cast, and we cannot go back without further expenditure and inconvenience which would not produce the results which my hon. Friend might think.
Telephones have been changed. Most vending machines have been changed. One obvious exception is parking meters and another, for those hon. Members who indulge, is the tabletop football games. But too much money has been spent on this system for it to be a responsible act of government to have a compulsory retreat to the sixpenny coin. The system is not perfect, nor is it the one which I would have chosen. But a sentimental attachment to a coin of the old system is not the way to iron out the imperfections of the present system.

10.7 p.m.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) has made a number of interesting points about what, as he rightly says, we must now learn to call the 2½p coin rather than the sixpence. I congratulate him on taking this rather unusual opportunity to put forward his views.
The whole question of decimalisation has aroused great interest and controversy in recent years. Having been involved myself, I find it tempting to look back at our battles, as some of my hon. Friends have done. But it would be wrong to consider at this stage the whole question of the system. What we have to consider is the main point—namely, the future of this coin.
Since my hon. Friend has been elected, he has been a persistent campaigner for the retention of a coin of this denomination. I believe that he will acknowledge that I, too, have played some part in this matter. Had it not been for the pressure which we put on the previous Government when we were in opposition, which culminated in a Motion which we moved on 19th February, 1970, matters might have gone beyond recall by the time we took office. As it was, that pressure made the Government review the question and the outcome was that, in April, 1970, they decided that the sixpence could remain legal tender for at least two years after the introduction of decimal currency in February this year. On coming to office, we reaffirmed that policy.
Perhaps I may remind the House, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Miss Hall), of the precise words of the Financial Secretary in a Parliamentary reply on 3rd November last year. He said:
The Government's policy is that the 6d. will remain legal tender for at least two years after Decimal Day. Its future thereafter will fall to be decided in the light of public demand for it".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1970; Vol. 805, c. 318.]
I am sure it is true to say that but for the campaign we waged in opposition, the sixpence might have been demonetised with the old pennies and threepenny bits when the decimal currency change-over period was brought to an end on 31st August.
As it is, the coin is now legal tender as 2½p by virtue of a Royal Proclamation made on 28th July. And, as the Financial Secretary said, we shall review the position in due course and reach a final decision about what is to happen at the end of the two-year period to which I referred.
I would not myself go along with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Haselhurst) that the 2½p piece is inconsistent with the system which we now have. Nor would I agree with him that the battle on this matter is lost or that this is an issue which is cut and dried. I have tried to describe precisely what the position is from the Government's point of view—namely, that the 2½p piece will continue as legal tender for the specified period and that we shall have to judge the matter in the light of the public demand for it.
In addition, we have taken steps to ensure that ample stocks of this coin are available for those who want to use it, and the banks have agreed to keep it in stock for as long as it remains legal tender. I will return to this subject shortly.
Virtually all of the 2½p coins which are surplus to the banks' requirements and have been returned to the Royal Mint are stockpiled there. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that less than 3 per cent. have been melted down; this was partly to recover the silver from those minted before 1947 and partly because there was some need for cupronickel for new coinage.
I mentioned the Labour Government's change of heart over this matter. In opposition we had been campaigning for the retention of the sixpenny piece for a considerable time before April, 1970, when they decided to have a period during which it would remain legal tender to test public demand for it. Certainly it would have been better had they listened to our argument earlier.
Looking back over the debates that we had on this issue, I cannot help but feel nostalgic, not least about one occasion, on 27th February, 1969, when, in Standing Committee upstairs on the Bill, as it then was, something happened which resulted in the OFFICIAL REPORT containing the words "New Clause disagreed to" because we defeated the Government, having made it clear that we were making a stand on the question of the sixpenny piece. However, the Government of the day reinstated the Clause on Report. When a similar thing happened in the House of Lords, they again reinstated it, though it was subsequently that they changed their mind


about keeping the coin for an experimental period.
I cannot help but feel that if they had made a decision of that kind earlier, rather than adopting the dogmatic attitude that they took many firms which were quite rightly planning ahead would not have made firm commitments which meant that they were unable to reverse the decision when the situation changed and it was decided to keep the sixpenny piece to see how things went. Had that not been done and had the Government of the day made their intention clear at the beginning rather than at the end, it is probably true to say—indeed, I am sure that it is—that the level at which the coin is now circulating would be higher than it is.
I would like to make clear the attitude of the Government now and, in particular—this is extremely important—try to distinguish between what the Government can and cannot do in this matter. We have made it clear that we have given, are giving and will give public demand an opportunity to make itself felt.
The attitude of the previous Government, at least until they belatedly changed their mind, was that the coin would go at the end of the change-over period, whether the public liked it or not. This has never been our attitude. Secondly, as I say, we have ensured that supplies of the coin are available for those who wish to use it. But we are not taking a decision whether the coin ought or ought not to remain a permanent feature of the coinage, or whether its life ought to be prolonged after February, 1973. That, as I have said, is a matter which will have to be reviewed and a decision taken then.
It is up to the public to make their wishes clear by the use which they make of the coin. That is what matters—whether it is actually found to be a useful and convenient coin as a permanent feature of the decimal currency system. Despite my hon. Friend's arguments, and the significant support which has been given for the Early Day Motion on the minting of a new 2½p coin, it seems to me that it would be just as premature now to decide that the coin should have a permanent place in our currency as it would be to decide now that it should finally be extinguished. It is right that

we should wait till the end of the period before we come to a conclusion on that.
Given the prolonged interest which I have had in this matter, I am sure that it is not necessary for me to say that it is no part of the Government's policy to try to force the coin out of circulation. Equally, however, there is no point in the Government trying to make it circulate above its natural level. I do not believe that there are any significant and effective steps which a Government can take artificially to stimulate circulation of a coin above the level at which it circulates naturally. The question is whether the public demand it, and I am sure that the points which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead made in saying that the public ought, therefore, to demand it, and that this would increase the level of circulation, are of great importance.
My hon. Friend mentioned the position of the banks, too. As he knows, we have been in considerable correspondence about it, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the kind things which he said about me personally in this connection. I am sure that he appreciates that it is not for the Government to involve themselves in the detailed arrangements which the banks make with their individual customers. Clearly, this is a matter at a detailed level which it must be for them to decide. But what the banks have said is that they will make 2½p coins available to those customers who want them.
My hon. Friend referred specifically to a statement that supplies of the sixpence, or as it now is, the 2½ piece, will not be allowed to become inadequate to meet public demand. As I have already sought to explain, there are adequate stocks available. It is a question of the public demanding them. There is a distinction between making certain that the supplies are available to meet public demand and what the public demand actually is.
It is a question, therefore, of the banks serving the public. My hon. Friend referred to a number of letters which he has received, and I was somewhat surprised to hear that he has some 70 cases on his file. As I have already explained, I do not consider that it would be right for the Government to intervene directly in these matters, but if he would care to send any cases to me, I should be very


willing to look at them. My understanding of the position is that the banks will certainly provide coins for those who wish to have them.
It would be wrong for the Government to try, as my hon. Friend seems to suggest, to insist that the banks should issue the coin to customers who do not want them. There would be a real danger, if they did that, of the Government getting into a position rather like that of King Canute, constantly trying to push back each wave, depending on which way the tide went. However, in saying that, I stress that this is not to prejudge the level at which the circulation may actually settle. To try constantly to push out coins to people who do not want them would be likely to result in their just flowing back. Most coins are drawn from the banks by retailers and get into the pockets and purses of the general public in the form of change. Retailers normally draw the coins from the bank in bags, and because the old sixpence, shilling and florin and the new decimal cupronickel coins are in a weight-value relationship, the value of a bag can be checked by weighing. Therefore, the banks and their customers are involved in least cost if those customers who draw coins are simply issued with bags handed in by other customers, the only check being to weigh them.
Most bags are paid in mixed, and some of them may contain 2½p coins. Where the customers are willing to take a mixed bag, there is no problem, and obviously some 2½p coins get into circulation in that way. Therefore, I am very surprised by my hon. Friend's statement that if one asks for a bag of mixed silver one has no 2½p coins in it, because I understand that the normal practice is that the bags are paid in, checked by weighing and paid out again, and the banks normally will not know whether there are 2½p coins in them. I should be very surprised if my hon. Friend's point is valid, that if one asks for a bag of mixed silver one will never receive any 2½p coins.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The ordinary individual goes to the bank, asks for £1-worth of 2½p coins and spends them. The shopkeeper then puts them back in the bank, and they do not come out again, so the demand cannot be met, because the shopkeeper and the banks do not use

them. Therefore, the poor customer must again ask for them, but instead of free circulation they go back into the bank. I have tested this at innumerable bank branches. I have obtained bags of £1-worth of mixed silver, but have not yet in seven months found a 2½p coin in them. Perhaps that is coincidence.

Mr. Higgins: I am surprised, because I understand that the position is as I have described it. It depends whether people ask for the 2½p coins—whether retailers in particular ask for them—whether the coins continue to circulate. If it were true that shops constantly give back bags of 2½p coins, then inevitably, whatever one did, they would be flowing back, but it appears from the figures available that they are continuing to circulate. To the extent that they are going around in mixed bags, they will continue to circulate. Obviously, it depends on how many retailers, in addition to those asking for mixed coins, ask for specific 2½p bags.
I understand that many retailers want separate bags of 5p or 10p coins, and it would not help the circulation of the 2½p coin if the banks included them willy-nilly in bags when the customer has specifically said that he does not want 2½p coins. Some retailers ask for them specifically, in which case they will receive a whole bag-full. The more people who do that, the more likely it is that the circulation will continue. For the banks to add 2½p coins by taking out other coins from bags which are already mixed would involve them in considerable cost. It is a matter which must be left to the banks.
My hon. Friend made one or two points about the position of London Transport. I think that the difficulty here was confined to one-man-operated buses, where the fares may be paid by insertion of coins in machines at the entrance to the bus. The minimum fare was increased from 2½p to 3p in August, but some other fares containing ½p—7½p and so on were reduced by ½p. There have been subsequent changes as well. It may well be the case that the fare structure will include elements such as 7½p, 12½p and 17½p in which the 2½p coin may be used in part payment. But my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would be wrong for me to go into details of the position of London Transport.
I take up the point in regard to the Amendment which has been put down to my hon. Friend's Early Day Motion—the suggestion that it would help if the Government were to decide that a new 2½p coin should be minted. I do not feel that that would make any significant difference and it would be expensive to start minting new 2½p coins as such when we already have a plentiful supply of coins which, by proclamation, are designated 2½p. Only about 3 per cent. of these coins have been melted down so that 97 per cent. of the original coins are still available, even though demand for them, inevitably to some extent in a decimal system, has declined. Adequate stocks are available.
There would be some practical problems in getting such a new coin into general circulation. That being so, it would make little practical difference whether the design on the coin indicated that it was the old 6d. or the new 2½p. Many of us in our day-to-day cash transactions do not distinguish between the old 1s. or the new 5p, or between the old florin and the new 10p. We do not always examine the faces of the coins all that closely, and I do not feel that minting a new 2½p coin as against continuing the experiment with the 6d. would make a significant difference to the level of circulation.
I hope that I have to some extent clarified the position. It is not an easy one. The Government adhere to the previous view that the right course of action is to carry out the experiment over the two-year period to see exactly how

it works in practice. The currency of the country is now decimal. We are using coins with exclusively decimal values. This is very much the testing time for the future of the 2½p coin.
But I am sure that my hon. Friends are right to bring this matter to public attention and to take this opportunity to do so, because it is important that if people want to retain a coin they should he aware of the issue. The Government are making this opportunity available, and it is now up to the public to make their wishes felt. We must see what happens in practice.

LEGAL AID

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I was intending, Mr. Speaker, to raise as the next subject on the Adjournment an important case with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. He has now been spared my lengthy advocacy, but I ask him briefly to look into the question of resources taken into account in applications for legal aid by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I shall be writing to my hon. Friend about the case. I hope that he will treat it sympathetically.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I will gladly respond to my hon. Friend's request.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.